Department of English

The True Master of Death: An Existential Reading of Harry Potter

Katrin Dahlbäck Master Degree Project Literature Spring 2013 Supervisor: Stefan Helgesson

Abstract

This thesis consists of a comprehensive character analysis of the protagonist and

antagonist in the Harry Potter series, on the basis of existential psychology. It is

argued that the outlook of this branch of psychology provides a thorough framework

for the interpretation of characters and objects in Rowling’s fictional world. Harry

Potter and Lord Voldemort are not only the protagonist and antagonist of the series,

but also represent two sides of the spectrum of existential psychology. By mainly

focusing on death, love, and free will Harry and Voldemort’s attempts to fulfil their

true potential are explored and analysed from an existential viewpoint.

While they share similar backgrounds and qualities, Harry is argued to

represent the ideal being, possessing additional qualities that Voldemort does not. Due

to these qualities, Harry’s actions and choices concerning his existence prove to be

very different from Voldemort’s. While Voldemort’s sole purpose in life appears to

be to overcome nonbeing: to achieve immortality, Harry accepts his existence for

what it is, he accepts his freedom and free will, his impending nonbeing, and does not

attempt to overcome it, and he therefore also accepts his anxiety. Harry is

consequently argued to act as, and become, an ideal being, while Voldemort

succumbs to his anxiety in his attempt to overpower death, and is ultimately destroyed

by it, indicating that his actions are not those of a complete being. Hence, Harry and

Voldemort’s actions appear to represent the two sides of existential psychology: the

human awareness of existence affects the individual’s choices, and actions. Harry

symbolises the ideal being, while Voldemort is the deterrent example of how not to

act if one wishes to fulfil one’s potentials, and preserve one’s being.

Keywords: Existentialism; existential psychology; existential philosophy; Harry Potter; J.K. Rowling; nonbeing; death; free will; freedom; anxiety; love; choice

Dahlbäck 1

I am the master of my fate: / I am the captain of

my soul.

- William Ernest Henley, “Invictus”

With Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort as two widely different representations of the

human individual’s attempt to develop, and preserve, a being, the central features of

existential psychology are here argued to be present in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter

series. Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort are not only the protagonist and antagonist of

the series, but also represent two sides of the spectrum of existential psychology.

While they share similar backgrounds and characteristics, Harry is portrayed as an

ideal being possessing additional qualities that Voldemort does not. While

Voldemort’s sole purpose in life appears to be to overcome nonbeing: to achieve

immortality, Harry proves to be the more insightful individual. He accepts the

existential facts of death, freedom, and love, while Voldemort distances himself from

them, dedicating his life to overcome death and achieve immortality. Within the

fictional world of Harry Potter, these two characters are in other words juxtaposed in

their attitudes to these existential givens.

Existential psychology is a branch of psychology that looks at how “existence”

(Gebsattel 186) determines the human’s sense of self and thus affects the way we lead

our lives. Existence should here be understood to mean the ability to “know that [one]

is there and can take a stand with reference to that fact” (May, Discovery 96): it

means to be aware of one’s presence in both space and time, and to know that one is

responsible for this existence. According to Eugene Taylor, “Ludwig Binswanger and

Martin Heidegger were the early voices of […] the existential-analytic movement in

psychology and psychiatry” (168), and the majority of the concepts within this

psychological movement therefore stem from Heidegger’s theories. By focusing on

Dahlbäck 2

the individual’s existence, “existential analysis was able to widen and deepen

psychoanalysis” (268). A key figure in this development was Rollo May, who,

according to Taylor, “chose to embark on an earlier historical comparison of

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and the relation of their ideas to psychoanalysis” (269).

May argued that, since existential psychology has its basis in existentialism,

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are to be considered its founders. May further “concluded

that ‘almost all the specific ideas which later appeared in psychoanalysis could be

found in Nietzsche in greater breadth and in Kierkegaard in greater depth” (Taylor

270), thus providing the basis on which he developed his theories. McDonald also

states that “existential psychology and psychotherapy is a movement within the field

of psychology that engages in a dialogue with philosophy, namely existentialism”

(52). Kierkegaard and Nietzsche’s existential theories, combined with Freud’s

psychoanalysis, and Heidegger and Binswanger’s existential analysis, have thus been

adapted to form an existential psychological perspective that focuses on the

psychological effects of the human’s awareness of his/her existence, and the need to

preserve it.

Being should, according to May “be understood […] to mean potential, the

source of potentiality; being is the potentiality by which […] each of us becomes what

he truly is” (Discovery 97, emphasis in the original). It should, in turn, be understood

as the ability to exists in the world – not “the capacity to see outside the world, to size

it up, to assess reality; it is rather [the] capacity to see [oneself] as a being in the

world” (103-4), and therefore to know that one has the ability to fulfil one’s true

potential. Thus, to be a complete and ideal being means to completely fulfil one’s true

potential, and each person is alone responsible for whom they become. It is the

process of becoming, of learning to accept one’s existence and everything that it

entails, that is the key to fulfilling one’s potential – to become an ideal being. If the

being is lost and nonbeing is entered, the ability to fulfil one’s potential is lost: one is

no longer a being who can achieve everything that one could be. The aim of this

thesis is precisely to demonstrate how this attempt and success at fulfilling one’s

being is explored through Rowling’s portrayal of Harry and Voldemort. Both Harry

and Voldemort lost their parents at a young age, providing them with an awareness of

the impending loss of their existence. This further suggests that their awareness of

existence is enhanced: they have experienced nonbeing, through the deaths of others,

and are therefore more aware of what it means to exist. In addition to sharing similar

Dahlbäck 3

qualities, they share similar pasts, and an awareness of death. This indicates that they

have rather equivalent foundations on which to build their selves. They therefore

serve as prime examples of how an individual can succeed and fail in the attempt to

develop, and preserve, his/her being. However, while their backgrounds are similar,

their actions, and the motives behind these, reveal significant differences. Within

Rowling’s fictional world, the protagonist Harry is here argued to represent the ideal

being, while Voldemort, as antagonist, represents the unsuccessful attempt to fulfil

one’s potential.

Additionally, the human “sense of being is bound up with the questions that

are deepest and most fundamental – questions of love, death, anxiety” (May,

Discovery 10) and freedom. These are also central themes in Rowling’s Harry Potter.

I will therefore attempt to accomplish a comprehensive character analysis of Harry

and Voldemort, and their juxtaposed approaches to nonbeing, freedom, and love, with

the help of concepts and perspectives from existential psychology. First, the grounds

on which the character analysis is based will be established. The thesis will then go on

to explore death, love, and freedom and the way Harry and Voldemort deal with these

existential givens and how it affects their approaches to existence and their beings.

Character Analysis When interpreting characters, especially when analysing them from a psychological

perspective, one needs to make a distinction between how literary characters and real

human beings are perceived. According to Rimmon-Kenan, there are two different

arguments concerning the perception of literary characters. While the purist argument

“points out that characters do not exist at all except insofar as they are a part of the

images and events which bear and move them” (Mudrick, referred to in Rimmon-

Kenan 31-2), the realist argument treats characters as if they were real human beings.

This argument also “tends to speculate about the characters’ unconscious motivations

and even constructs for them a past and future beyond what is specified in the text”

(32). In accordance with the purist argument, characters do not exist outside the pages

of a novel, and do not have a life other than that specified within the text, I would

argue that characters should be analysed solely within the realm of their fictional

world, based on the information provided by the author. It is here important that Harry

and Voldemort are analysed within their magical world, thus accepting the rules,

objects, and creatures that only exist within this series. If analysed outside the

Dahlbäck 4

confines of their fictional world, Harry and Voldemort’s actions could not be

considered logical, as the magic they perform, and the world in which they live,

would not exist. If they are accepted as parts of their fictional world, their actions are

accepted as real, and can therefore be analysed.

In this sense I would like to combine the realist and the purist approach: while

a purist approach to characters is applied, there is a realist approach to the fictional

world. Ronen further argues that literary theorists appear to “attach a high degree of

realism to the notion of worlds in fiction”, further indicating that they “seem to be

modal realists in their approach to fictional worlds” (50). Although fictional worlds

are not actual worlds, this realist approach suggests that there is a sense of realism in

the text; although the world does not in fact exist, there is a sense of possibility to it.

Ronen argues that literary worlds are possible “in the sense that they actualize a world

which is analogous with, derivative of, or contradictory to the world we live in” (50,

emphasis in the original). Thus, although all fictional worlds are not equivalent to

actual worlds, they are considered possible. Ronen accordingly argues that a “fictional

world forms an independent modal system, and is, in this respect, less directly linked

to the actual world than possible worlds” (52). It is further argued “that fiction is a

possible world possessing an ontological autonomy not shared by other possibilities”

(52). Hence, since fictional worlds are not limited by the rules and structures of the

actual world, they are all possible due to their own stated rules. Since all fictional

worlds are “already out there in the ontic sphere of fictional existence” (Ronen 56), I

would claim that the realist approach towards fictional worlds supports the

interpretation of these literary worlds as possible worlds: they can be analysed and

discussed based on this assumption, even though they are not in fact real. However,

since an analysis of literary characters presupposes an acceptance of their fictional

world as possible, the unique rules of that world need to be acknowledged and

accepted. Hence, it is only within the frames of its fictional world that a character can

be appropriately analysed.

By removing Harry and Voldemort from the logical rules within their fictional

world, their actions and thoughts cannot be accurately analysed, since they would be

considered illogical and untrue. Similarly, magical creatures and objects that exist

solely within this magical universe can only be analysed within the confines of this

world, as they do not exist outside of it. Horcruxes and Deathly Hallows only exist in

Dahlbäck 5

Rowling’s fictional world, and can thus only be analysed as parts of it, based solely

on the information provided in the novels. Due to this, the author’s intentions will

have to be overlooked, as well as additional information provided by the author

outside of the text. Although Rowling’s intended symbolism, and her explanations

concerning characters’ intentions, might add to an analysis, the presumption that the

characters are real within the novels excludes the author completely. This approach

would, furthermore, exclude questions concerning the effects of the genre to which it

belongs: the characters are here assumed to be real solely within their possible world,

and if removed from it they would consequently cease to exist. Only by remaining in

the magical world, where they are able to exist without any disturbance from the logic

of the actual world, can they be accurately analysed.

This line of argument can be further developed by way of Zunshine’s

discussion of Theory of Mind. This psychological theory claims that human beings

possess the “ability to explain people’s behavior in terms of their thoughts, feelings,

beliefs, and desires” (Zunshine 189). When literary works of fiction mirror these

thoughts and feelings by ascribing them to fictional characters, “Theory of Mind

allows [the reader] to make sense of fictional characters” (382). It is this very

tendency to mistake literary characters for real people that provides a valid basis on

which to analyse them, although within the strict confines of their fictional world.

While literary characters are not real, they are perceived as such. By assuming that the

characters, within their fictional world, possess the thoughts and feeling ascribed to

them in the novels, they can be analysed based on this information. But a valid

analysis can only be based on the information provided in the novels that are

analysed. This is the approach that will be adopted in this thesis.

Existential Psychology as an Interpretive Approach While there are several approaches on which to base a literary analysis, in particular

an analysis of literary characters, existential psychology “looks at a person’s being,

which is the totality of who they are” (Taylor 275). While fictional characters do not

provide a reader with the same basis for analysis as a real human being could, this

approach serves to provide a valid analysis of the characters’ attitudes towards their

own existence. While not real, the characters will be analysed in the context in which

they exist: within the confines of their fictional world, their whole being can be

studied. All determining aspects of the characters in focus will here be analysed,

Dahlbäck 6

based on the information provided in the novels. Existential psychology thus focuses

on the character’s entire existence, although only within their fictional world. While

psychoanalysis, social-, cognitive- and developmental psychology would each focus

on their particular fields of interest, existential psychology unites the different aspects,

as the entire individual’s existence is the focus. An individual’s past and childhood is

arguably just as important as his/her interpersonal relationships, in determining what

approach s/he has to existence. All aspects of the individual’s past, present, and future

are important factors to be taken into consideration. An analysis of a literary character

would only be based on the information provided within the literary work/s in which

the character is featured.

Existential psychology and philosophy highlight “eleven existentials” that

determine the individual’s approach to existence: “freedom, responsibility, choice,

alienation, temporality, Being-towards-death, depression and anxiety, the inter-

personal world, dogma and the socio-cultural world, meaning and purpose, and

narrative” (McDonald 211). These existentials are connected to each other through the

individual’s existence. While Heidegger’s term Dasein refers to the individual’s

existence, it is the desire to fulfil one’s being that is the core of this existence.

Freedom, responsibility, and choice are, furthermore, determining factors of the

fulfilment of one’s being: every individual is “free to make choices about [his/her]

being, but not making a choice is impossible; by not choosing [s/he is] still making

choices about who [s/he is], and [his/her] future possibilities” (Heidegger, referred to

in McDonald 69). But with the freedom of choice and free will comes a responsibility

for one’s existence, and this responsibility is one of the underlying causes for an

individual’s perceived sense of anxiety. May states that “anxiety is the state of the

human being in the struggle against what would destroy his being” (Discovery 33,

emphasis in the original). Although love is a vital component needed in order to fulfil

one’s potential and thereby to become a complete being, it is also a source for anxiety.

If not experienced during the early stages of life love can, rather than aiding the

individual in the process of becoming, be perceived as a threat to his/her existence.

This indicates that love, in addition to nonbeing and freedom, can cause an individual

to experience a state of anxiety. I would thus argue that these four existentials –

nonbeing, freedom, love and anxiety – are the most fundamental ones, in the Harry

Potter series.

Dahlbäck 7

There is, in existential psychology, also a religious influence: in Love & Will

May talks about “the love of God for man” (Love 38), and Hunsinger further raises

the subject by talking about a spiritual death, in relation to a bodily one. In addition to

emerging in a Western cultural context, this suggests that Christianity has influenced

the foundation of this branch of psychology. Cicirelli, however, argues that

“[r]eligion can be used as a coping mechanism for dealing with death anxieties and

preparing for death” (123), indicating that while Christianity might be the founding

religion for existential psychology, any religion might be applicable, since the basis is

the human need to “deal with their existential burden by creating systems of meaning

that allow them to suppress the problem of mortality by adhering to belief systems”

(Hart & Goldberg 110). Thus, while the presence of Christianity within existential

psychology is apparent, it is arguably due to the human tendency to turn to religion, to

a belief system or a higher power, when faced with the burden of existential

awareness.

While it could be argued that the Christian influence lessens the validity of the

theory, this influence also appears to be present in Harry Potter. Killinger argues that

Harry is “a Christ figure” (2), and Wandinger additionally claims that the novels

“propagate a Christian conception of sacrifice” (27). He further suggests that

“Rowling consistently uses the term sacrifice to mean the Christian sacrifice of self-

giving love” (47, emphasis in the original), indicating that Christianity is a recurring

theme in Harry Potter. Barber addresses this by arguing that “[t]he profusion of

biblical content within Western civilization and beyond makes justifying or

corroborating Rowling's particular influences unnecessary” (183). I would argue that

the same is true for existential psychology: they are both highly influenced by the

Western culture, and therefore also by Christianity. This would further entail that

there is a sense of Christian morality in both Harry Potter and existential psychology.

This morality certainly affects the way the characters are both portrayed and

interpreted. There are thereby cultural and moral similarities between Harry Potter

and existential psychology. This suggests that the religious influences in existential

psychology do not affect the validity of the theoretical framework significantly. This

would further entail that existential psychology is applicable as a theoretical

framework, when analysing these literary works.

I would further argue that McDonald’s method of using narrative inquiry is

suitable for the purposes of this thesis, since it can consist of “any type of inquiry that

Dahlbäck 8

uses or analyses narrative materials” (McDonald 98). Accordingly, an analysis of a

literary work is arguably an analysis of a narrative material. Masiach and Zillber

further state that the information on which the analysis is based “can be collected as a

story (a life story provided in […] a literary work)” (referred to in McDonald 98).

Since the narrative approach McDonald applies in his study “seeks to understand an

individual’s experience of their life and the significant events that have shaped it”

(92), existential psychology and narrative inquiry could thus adequately be applied to

Harry Potter, as the purpose here is to analyse the characters’ differing experiences,

and the way they are shaped by them.

Existential Psychology: A Current Approach The purpose of a human being’s existence is to achieve a state of an ideal being, by

fulfilling one’s true potential. McDonald further suggests that the process of

becoming, and the fulfilment of one’s being includes the ability to form and maintain

“inter-personal” (244) relationships. In order to achieve a true sense of being one

needs to be present in three different modes of the world simultaneously. To be

present in what existentialist psychologists refer to as Umwelt means to be present in

one’s worldly surroundings, to have a relationship with the world. The presence in the

Mitwelt is the inter-personal relationships that McDonald refers to, signifying that one

has a sense of togetherness with others. The relationship with others is, furthermore,

the mode most emphasized in relation to love: a presence in the Mitwelt indicates that

one has the ability to not only relate to others, but to care for them. Which in turn

suggests that love is a fundamental component needed in order to fulfil one’s potential

and to become an ideal being. Finally, to be present in Eigenwelt refers to a sense of

self-awareness: it is the relationship one has with oneself1. Only those who are able to

be present in all three modes of the world are able to fulfil his/her true potential by

achieving a sense of being. It is thus not only a matter of maintaining relationships

with other people, or solely possessing a sense of self-awareness. These three modes

are interconnected, and “it is only by changing one’s relationship with oneself, that

one is then able to change one’s relationship with others” (Golomb, referred to in

McDonald 247). This would further indicate that it is only in the simultaneous

existence in all three modes of the world that one can achieve a state of an ideal being.

1 Since the terms Umwelt, Mitwelt, and Eigenwelt do not have suitable English equivalents, the German terms will be used throughout the essay.

Dahlbäck 9

It is thus of great importance that a character is analysed not just in isolation, but also

in relation to other characters. A character is not the solitary focus in a literary work:

it is a tool in the narrative. It exists alongside other characters, and the interactions

with these are important aspects of the way the character is perceived and portrayed.

Although existential psychology and philosophy apparently ignore questions

of race, gender, and sexual orientation, there are several studies where existential

psychology has been applied to both genders, as well as different sexual orientations.

In his study, McDonald applies existential psychology to homosexual women coming

to terms with their sexual orientation, and Dobson and Wong provides a modern

interpretation of this psychological branch by applying it to women who are living

with HIV. Thus, while Hoffman et al. argue that existential psychology is “dominated

by White, heterosexual male perspectives” (1) McDonald’s study, as well as Dobson

and Wong, appear to indicate that while there is a need for more diversity within this

psychological approach, the existing theories within the field are still applicable no

matter what race, gender or sexual orientation an individual has. These recent studies

further indicate that there “has been a renewed interest in issues of […] existential

approaches in psychological and counseling literature” (Tomer, Eliason & Wong

xxiii). I would therefore argue that despite a tendency towards white

heteronormativity in existential psychology, it can be adapted to contemporary

interpretations. One does not need to be limited by the cultural viewpoint that was

current during the conception of this perspective: all theories are a result of the time

during which they are conceived, but also of the time during which they evolve. I

would consequently claim that despite the lack of diversity within the earlier tradition

of existential psychology, it does allow for a less heteronormative interpretation.

The white heteronormative perspective that is evident in existential

psychology could, moreover, be argued to be present within Rowling’s Harry Potter,

as her protagonist is portrayed to be a white heterosexual male, whose best friends do

not deviate the slightest from the heterosexual norm. Even though there are characters

(e.g. Cho Chang, Dean Thomas, and Dumbledore) that deviate from this white

heteronormative position, these are not the main characters in focus, nor are their

divergences explicitly emphasised. Despite the apparent white heteronormative

perspective in both Harry Potter and existential psychology, they both emerged in

similar cultural contexts, although during different times. I would therefore argue that

Dahlbäck 10

there is a resonance between the two that provides a solid basis for an analysis with

this theoretical framework.

Psychology in Harry Potter: Previous Research When Rakison and Simard explore Harry Potter from the perspective of evolutionary

developmental psychology, they argue that certain “psychological preferences are

such an integral part of how we think and act that authors cannot help but express

them when they write fiction” (251). This claim suggests that there are always

psychological aspects present within literary works. It does not matter what the

author’s intention was, certain “psychological mechanisms are so ingrained in the

mind that they cannot help but be unconsciously expressed in literature” (251). While

Harry Potter has previously been analysed from several psychological and

philosophical perspectives, there seems to be a division within the field. While

existential themes, such as death, freedom, and interpersonal relationships have all

been analysed, they have been studied separately. While Hook provides a

psychological perspective on death, her focus is solely on the grieving process and the

different ways in which Harry and Voldemort deal with their bereavement. In “The

Real Secret of the Phoenix”, Taliaferro provides a similar philosophical approach,

claiming that death signifies a moral regeneration: Harry’s death and rebirth signifies

his transformation into a complete and true self. Walls and Walls develop a

Heidegger-based interpretation, arguing that Harry’s awareness of his mortality is due

to him being “confronted with death right from the start” (247). Although it is not

their intent, their observation mirrors the existentialist concept of “Being-towards-

death” (McDonald 233). Although these scholars all focus on death as a recurring

theme in Rowling’s novels, they analyse it as being completely severed from other

aspects of the individual. These interpretations thus indicate that there is a further

need to study the effects death has on the individual, not as a separate aspect but as a

part of his/her existence.

Goodfriend, in turn, looks at the importance of parental love and care. In

“Attachment Styles at Hogwarts”, she analyses the three main characters’ differing

attachment styles with their parents, and how this affects their abilities “to begin and

maintain normal, adult relationships – including romantic” (75) ones. Both parental

love and interpersonal relationships are thus acknowledged. Provenzano and Heyman

also explore parental love and attachment, as they highlight how the love Harry

Dahlbäck 11

“received from both his parents in infancy likely supplied him with the secure

attachment” (113) protected him from the maltreatment he suffered when living with

the Dursleys. They further emphasize Harry’s need and longing for parental love by

acknowledging the parental figures that guide and care for him throughout the series.

Interpersonal relationships are further explored in “Intergroup Conflict in the World

of Harry Potter”, as Beers and Apple apply social psychology to Rowling’s novels

when studying the establishing of social identities and intergroup interactions at

Hogwarts. Since early attachment determines the individual’s ability to love and

maintain interpersonal relationships, these aspects should be studied in relation to

each other rather than as separate unities. Existential psychology would here add a

new perspective, as it would study the effect interpersonal relationships have on the

ability to love.

While love is argued to be one of the most essential themes in the series, the

ability to love is always placed in relation to hate. Patrick and Patrick further explore

the difference between love and hate as they provide an analysis of the battle between

good and evil. They apply a psychoanalytical approach, as they refer to both Freud

and Jung’s theories concerning the human mind. They further explore the theme of

good versus evil: while “Harry is presented as a figure of good in opposition to the

evil figure of Voldemort” (231), the theories of Freud, Jung, and Milgram all support

the claim that the potential for evil is present within “the mind of each individual in

society” (226). The evil within Harry is, of course, symbolically represented as the

piece of Voldemort’s soul that exists inside of him.

Psychoanalysis is further applied by Pahel in “Harry Potter and the Magic of

Transformation”, focusing on the transformational effects of trauma. The view that

trauma provides a transformational opportunity is present within both psychoanalysis

and existential psychology. Existential psychologists “have described trauma as a

time when meaning may be created and courage found” (Tedeschi et al, cited in

McDonald 27). There are, accordingly, key aspects of existential psychology that

have been explored within the confines of different psychological approaches.

The most fundamental existential concepts evident in Harry Potter have thus

been analysed from both psychological and philosophical perspectives, providing the

field with differing approaches to these themes. An existential psychological approach

would, however, unite these different approaches. What I propose, therefore, is to

study different existential concepts jointly, and by focusing on a character’s entire

Dahlbäck 12

fictional existence, an existential approach may thus provide a more comprehensive

analysis.

Nonbeing and Death

Since the individual strives to preserve his or her being, the threat of a possible state

of nonbeing, such as death, will cause an overshadowing sense of anxiety, causing the

individual to obsess over the possible destruction of the self. A future state of

nonbeing is inevitable, and is therefore an existential fact: every living organism will,

at some point in time, cease to exist, and the human being is capable of grasping the

meaning of this truth. According to May, the “most obvious form of threat of

nonbeing” (Discovery 105) is death. A state of nonbeing does, however, not

necessarily indicate death, but a loss of being. Although the most common

interpretation of nonbeing is death, it will here also be explored in terms of living

without the possibility to fulfil one’s potential: to live without existing. Natural death,

or bodily death, thereby refers to the state when one’s body has been destroyed.

Whereas spiritual death refers to the loss of one’s soul, which in turn entails that one

has lost the possibility to fulfil one’s true potential – thereby indicating that a state of

nonbeing has been entered.

Due to the awareness “that his existence can become destroyed, that he can

lose himself and his world, that he can become ‘nothing’” (May, Discovery 109-10)

the individual will be occupied by possible destruction of the his/her existence, and

the awareness of this possibility overshadows the current state of being. If the fear of

nonbeing is based in the fear of death, the individual will spend a life fearing a future

state of dying, and by doing so, will not be able to reach the state of an ideal being.

This, since they are controlled by an “extraordinary and unspeakable anxiety. Such a

[…] terrifying confrontation immobilizes our normal responses and, what is most

important, transforms the value of everything in life” (Koestenbaum 6).

Consequently, if this state of nonbeing or death is not confronted, it “provokes us to

live defensively and to receive less from life than if we would confront the issue of

our existence” (Feist & Feist 349). Either one’s awareness is they key to acceptance,

or it is the cause of an endless struggle with fear and anxiety. It is therefore crucial

that such a confrontation takes place: by fearing a state of nonbeing, due to the need

to preserve a state of being, the individual will not be able to be the complete being.

Dahlbäck 13

In May’s view, anxiety is characterized by “the feelings of uncertainty and

helplessness in the face of the danger. The nature of anxiety can be understood when

we ask what is threatened in the experience which produces anxiety” (Meaning 205,

original emphasis). Any threat to the being, or the self, will cause anxiety, and while it

can be accepted and overpowered, it cannot be removed. Anxiety is “an ontological

characteristic of man, rooted in his very existence as such” (Discovery 109). This is

the main reason why anxiety causes the individual such severe agony: in addition to

being a threat to one’s being and one’s self, it is also a “threat to the foundation, the

center of [one’s] existence” (109). The fear of nonbeing causes the individual to live

defensively, the being does not exist in the world to the extent it would if there was no

dread of not being. Being is thus sacrificed due to the fear of nonbeing: the focus on

the eventual state of nonbeing causes the being to exist more in itself than in the

world. Since Voldemort’s fear of nonbeing and Harry’s acceptance of it are

juxtaposed against each other, this is one of the most recurring themes in Rowling’s

Harry Potter.

The Fear of Nonbeing Throughout the seven novels there are two major expressions of the dread of not

being: ghosts and Voldemort. While both Voldemort and ghosts could be argued to

share a fear of nonbeing they do, however, fear different aspects of it. In Hunsinger’s

view, there is both a “natural death” and a “spiritual death” (33). He further states that

“[n]atural death is not only the point of transition into a future life; it is also the

decisive point at which one’s eternal testing becomes clear” (42-3). This claim

highlights the religious aspects of existential psychology: there is a belief in souls and

in an eternal existence, beyond death. While Voldemort seeks to conquer his natural,

and “biological death” (33), ghosts have already suffered this and instead they spend

eternity avoiding a spiritual death. Nearly Headless Nick explains why he is a ghost,

stating that he “was afraid of death” and that he, for that reason, “chose to remain

behind” (Rowling, Order 759). Instead of facing his death completely, he “chose [a]

feeble imitation of life instead” (759). Due to his fear of nonbeing, Nick has to suffer

a solely spiritual life for eternity. The ghosts of Hogwarts thus serve as a symbol for

the fear of complete death. They do no longer exist, in the sense of being-in-the-

world: rather, they live among the existing beings in the world. They have died, but

Dahlbäck 14

cling so desperately to the slight flicker of life left only in the remains of their souls

that they manage to live alongside those who still exist.

According to Koestenbaum, “[i]n analyzing our own death, we must examine

more than merely the physical disintegration of our own bodies” (6). Arguably, in

contrast to the solely bodily death that ghosts have suffered, one can exist in a state of

nonbeing that does not equal death: in Rowling’s fictional universe this is symbolised

by “the Dementors’ Kiss” (Rowling, Prisoner 183). While a ghost has lost its natural

body, the victim of a Dementors’ Kiss has lost his/her soul.

You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But you’ll have no sense of self any more, no memory, no… anything. There’s no chance at all of recovery. You’ll just – exist. As an empty shell. And your soul is gone for ever… lost (Rowling, Prisoner 183)

A Dementors’ Kiss thus causes a state of nonbeing rather different from an ordinary

death. While the body is still alive, the individual does not have a soul: s/he has lost

his/her presence in the three modes of the world. A life without a soul appears, here,

to be even more dreadful than a bodily death. In Hunsinger’s view, the “[s]piritual

death is the death of a man as an ideal being” (35). Without a soul the individual

consequently enters a state of nonbeing: although still alive the being has been

destroyed. This, since the possibility of being present in the Umwelt, Mitwelt, and

Eigenwelt has been destroyed. The simultaneous existence in the three modes of the

world is a vital component in becoming an ideal being. It is further stated that the loss

of one’s soul is equivalent to the loss of awareness concerning one’s existence:

although the individual arguably still lives in the world, s/he has lost his/her

awareness concerning it, and has consequently lost his/her being. An individual

suffering from a Dementors’ Kiss would therefore lose all possibility of being an ideal

being, since the inability to exist completely in the world will render the individual

unable to fulfil his/her true potential.

This perception of nonbeing does not appear to be what Voldemort fears: in

his mind “[t]here is nothing worse than death” (Rowling, Order 718), and this is the

state of mind that follows him throughout the series. Due to his fear of an impending

death, Voldemort, undoubtedly, both expresses and symbolises the dread of not being.

It is this haunting fear of death that has driven his quest to overcome a state of

nothingness. The fear of nonbeing consequently keeps Voldemort from living a full

life: as he attempts to murder Harry, the killing curse rebounds, Voldemort is “ripped

Dahlbäck 15

from [his] body” and is thereafter “less than a spirit, less than the meanest ghost”

(Rowling, Goblet 566). In Koestenbaum’s view, “any threat to your body becomes a

threat to the being itself” (122). The loss of his body thus indicates that Voldemort is

on the verge of nonbeing: without his body he cannot exist as a being. He has lost his

body, and without it, he is no longer a being-in-the-world. Taliaferro states that

“[u]ntil Voldemort can become re-embodied, his ‘life’ is parasitic on the blood and

the limbs of others” (239). Since he no longer has the body of a human, he is even

further away from a state of being than before: he lives as a parasite, as an animal,

rather than a human being. Voldemort himself states his bodiless state, in the first four

books, caused him to be “as powerless as the weakest creature alive” (Rowling,

Goblet 566), and he had to force himself “second by second, to exist” (567). He has

arguably lost his ability to exist: he is, however, still aware of his existence, but like a

ghost he has lost the ability to exist as a being. Even when he, in the Goblet of Fire

regains his body, it “does not seem to be natural; his face is snakelike, and he is able

to fly without the aid of a broomstick or other magical means” (Taliaferro 239). It

does not matter that he has attained the physical form of a human being: he possesses

non-human qualities, even by magical standards, and he also appears to resemble an

animal – a snake. By emphasizing the significance of this distinction between human

and animal, a cultural perception is highlighted: human beings are different from, and

superior to, animals. This distinction is also apparent in existential psychology, as

only humans are able to achieve a sense of being. Furthermore, while Voldemort

appears to have escaped a bodily death, his life appears to be far from natural: he is

alive, but he is not completely human, and this is what keeps him from existing as a

being, and therefore also to fulfil his potential as one.

The Attempt to Overcome Death Voldemort’s obsession with defeating death is here claimed to stem from early

experiences of death: since his mother died just after he was born, Voldemort grew up

to both despise and fear death. Since “it is in [the] encounter with death that each of

us discovers his hunger for immortality” (Feifel 62) I would argue that this was a

determining factor in Voldemort’s desire for immortality. When Dumbledore first

meets him, a young Voldemort states that his “mother can’t have been magic, or she

wouldn’t have died” (Rowling, Half-Blood 257). He thus reveals his ideas concerning

magic and death: a truly powerful wizard would, according to him, have the tools to

Dahlbäck 16

overcome death. Even before he arrives at Hogwarts, he has started to plan his

eventual immortality. In Koestenbaum’s view,

To believe in immortality does not mean to have overcome the primal anxiety about our own death; it means that we have decided to make a strenuous effort – both psychologically and intellectually – to lead an existence which works constantly at convincing ourselves that the anxiety about our own death is unfounded and can be overcome (Koestenbaum 10)

This would entail that while Voldemort’s entire existence consists of conquering an

inevitable state of nonbeing, this is, nonetheless, a sign of his constant struggle with

the anxiety caused by his dread of not being. Even at the age of sixteen, Voldemort

“was doing all he could to find out how to make himself immortal” (Rowling, Half-

Blood 467). He eventually finds a way to overcome a bodily death: he tries to

overpower his anxiety by transferring parts of his soul to objects, as he creates the

Horcruxes that he believes will secure him an eternal life. This is what separates

Voldemort from Harry, who realizes that the anxiety concerning his own death is

unfounded – he does not try to achieve immortality to overpower death, he overcomes

anxiety by accepting death.

Voldemort’s attempt to conquer death would indicate that he tries “gain power

over nature” and the “natural world” (Feist & Feist 347). This by attempting to do

what nature does not permit: to escape his unavoidable death. His methods for doing

this indicate that this is a highly unnatural process. Since Dasein is the unity of the

self and the world, and thus also nature, actions that cause the self to separate from

nature will cause the individual to lose his sense of being-in-the-world. I would

furthermore insist that this is depicted in Rowling’s series: Voldemort creates several

Horcruxes, in his attempt to overcome his natural death. A Horcrux is “an object in

which a person has concealed part of their soul” (Rowling, Half-Blood 464). By

removing part of one’s soul “and hid[ing] it in an object outside the body” it will keep

the individual from a natural death: “even if one’s body is attacked or destroyed, one

cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged” (464). In order to

remove part of one’s soul, the soul must be split. Voldemort not only splits his soul

once: he proceeds “to rip it into seven pieces’” (Rowling, Half-Blood 466). These

different parts of Voldemort are what keep him alive. They keep him from a natural,

bodily death: “Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort [would] be a mortal man with a

maimed and diminished soul” (Rowling, Half-Blood 475). However, since “the soul is

supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against

Dahlbäck 17

nature” (465). I would therefore argue that it is by committing this act that Voldemort

separates himself completely from nature. By splitting his soul Voldemort removes

himself from his being: for every part of his soul that Voldemort removes he is

brought closer to a nonbeing similar to that a Dementor’s Kiss would cause.

Voldemort has consequently lost his presence in the Umwelt: his relationship with the

natural world. Since the fulfilment of one’s being demands a presence in the Umwelt

– in the natural and surrounding world, Voldemort’s being is consequently lost.

In The Order of the Phoenix, we read that there are “other ways of destroying

a man” (Rowling 718) than death. In order to reach a state that Voldemort appears to

perceive as immortality, he sacrifices his soul. This action further emphasizes his

ignorance concerning the various possible states of nonbeing. Voldemort’s perception

appears to be that natural death is the only true state of nonbeing, and it is thus this

that he strives to overcome, by splitting his soul into several parts, and removing the

from his body. In Hunsinger’s view, however, spiritual death, “unlike natural death,

[…] requires a consciousness of the infinite and the eternal. To say that man dies

spiritually means that that which is essentially human in man dies” (35). This is

evident in Harry Potter, as it is stated that “a Horcrux is the complete opposite of a

human being” (Rowling, Hallows 90). Hence, for every part of his soul that leaves his

body, Voldemort’s being is damaged. Instead of closing him off from a possibility of

nonbeing, he causes this state to happen. Voldemort, rather than suffering a bodily

death, causes his spiritual death: even though he arguably is trying to escape one state

of nonbeing, he enters another.

Overcoming Anxiety Through Fear The paralysing anxiety one feels when confronted with death is one of the basic

existential facts that one must accept in order to exist completely. In Rowling’s series,

this is most clearly symbolised by Dementors: creatures who “suck the happiness out

of a place” (Rowling, Prisoner 76) as they cause “a person to relive the worst

memories of their life” (Order 33). In order for this portrayal to be effective, Harry’s

reaction to the Dementors is the most powerful one by far. In existential psychology it

is claimed that “[a]nxiety shows that we are in the presence of our supreme dread,

anguish, angst” (Koestenbaum 126). This would indicate that Harry’s traumatized

past would cause him to possess a more apparent sense of dread than his friends. Not

only did he survive Voldemort’s attempt to kill him, he also witnessed the murder of

Dahlbäck 18

his parents. The Dementors thus cause Harry to relive memories that are more

anxiety-generating than the memories his friends are forced to recall. Harry’s

immediate reaction when meeting a Dementor indicates that these creatures do, in

fact, cause a reaction similar to that of anxiety. Since May argues that anxiety causes

one’s “perceptions generally become blurred or vague” (Man’s 39), Harry’s reaction

appears to be rather literal. During his first meeting with a Dementor, “Harry’s eyes

rolled up into his head. He couldn’t see. He was drowning in cold. There was a

rushing in his ears as though of water. He was being dragged downwards, the roaring

growing louder” (Rowling, Prisoner 66). Harry appears to be overwhelmed by the

anxiety that the Dementors cause him to experience, as his perceptions are distorted.

May further explores the existential concept of anxiety as he states that it

“overwhelms the person’s discovery of being, blots out the sense of time, dulls the

memory of the past, and erases the future” (Discovery 110). Harry’s reaction to a

Dementor is similar to that caused by anxiety: it is mainly a psychological reaction,

causing a perceived sense of physical pain. May writes that “[a]nxiety strikes us at the

very ‘core’ of ourselves: it is what we feel when our existence as selves is threatened”

(Man’s 40). I would therefore claim that Harry’s perceived sense of anxiety is due to

being forced to relive the moment when his life was threatened, and his existence was

disrupted. At the moment of his parents’ deaths, Harry’s only sense of safety was

taken away from him, further causing him to spend the remainder of his childhood in

a state of fear. It is only when this fear is faced that he can accept his anxiety, and

consequently also his existence.

Differently from anxiety, fear is not that which is perceived as a threat to the

centre of one’s existence, it is rather “a threat to the periphery of his existence” (May,

Discovery 110). In Rowling’s Harry Potter, the possibility to objectivise fear, and the

ability to “stand outside and look at it” (110), is mainly symbolised by Boggarts.

These magical creatures possess the ability to “take the shape of whatever it thinks

will frighten [the person] most” (Rowling, Prisoner 101). The Boggarts can sense the

deepest fear of the human it is facing, even if the individual in question is not aware

of this fear. The Boggarts allow its human counterpart to not only discover its deepest

fear, but also provide them with opportunity to confront it. In analogy with Tillich’s

view that “fear can be met by courage” (39) there is a constant striving to transform

anxiety into fear. It is only when this transformation is complete that anxiety can be

completely overcome. I would here claim that courage is symbolised by a spell,

Dahlbäck 19

causing the Boggart to transform into a state that is not perceived as frightening, and

the human being can move forward without being hindered by it.

Although humans have a continuous urge to transform anxiety into fear,

Tillich argues that this is futile: “The basic anxiety, the anxiety of a finite being about

the threat of nonbeing, cannot be eliminated. It belongs to existence itself” (39). Fear

and anxiety might be different, in terms of how they affect the being, but they cannot

be completely separated from each other: “[t]hey are immanent within each other”

(37). There is, according to Tillich, always a “sting of fear in anxiety”, just as

“anxiety strives toward fear” (37). In The Prisoner of Azkaban, fear and anxiety are

intertwined with each other as Harry’s fear causes a Boggart to turn into a Dementor.

Due to the Boggart’s representation of fear, and the Dementor as a symbol for

anxiety, Harry’s confrontation with a Boggart portrays his attempt to transform

anxiety into fear. Since the Boggart only turns into a representation of a Dementor, it

does not affect Harry as strongly as a real Dementor would. Just as anxiety is harder

to overcome than fear, the spell used to overpower a Dementor is more difficult to

master than the one needed to conquer a Boggart. While thirteen-year-old students are

expected to be able to defeat a Boggart, not all adult wizards are able to perform the

spell needed to overpower a Dementor. According to May’s theories, fear allows us to

“know what threatens us, […] our perceptions are sharper, and we take steps to run or

in the other appropriate ways to overcome the danger” (Man’s 39). By facing a

Boggart, Harry is forced to become aware of his greatest anxiety: it allows him to

search for a way to overcome and accept his anxiety. If he had not faced his anxiety in

the form of fear, Harry would, in May’s view, not have been able to know “what steps

to take to meet the danger” (39). The Boggart allows Harry to temporarily study his

anxiety from afar, and I would therefore argue that his fear provides him the tools he

needs in order to accept his anxiety.

The Inevitable Nonbeing While Voldemort’s existence consists of a desire to escape anxiety, by overcoming

nonbeing, Harry “is not tempted to seek eternal life through murder as was

Voldemort” (Williams & Kellner 138-9). Walls and Walls claim that since “Harry

was confronted with death right from the start, so from an unusually young age he

was aware of his mortality” (247). Although this also appears to be true for

Voldemort, I would argue that their experiences of death are vastly different, as are

Dahlbäck 20

their ideas concerning the possibility of not being. Having already faced his own

death, even though not aware of it at the time, Harry has less reason to fear a state of

nonbeing than Voldemort does. During the series, Harry is given several opportunities

to confront his fear of death, and the anxiety it causes. Voldemort is, on the other

hand, controlled by his anxiety. The dread concerning his own nonbeing causes

Voldemort to strive for immortality, and this is consequently also what leads Harry to

accept death.

Each time Harry faces Voldemort, he also faces his own mortality: each time

he becomes aware of the possibility of his impending death, Harry’s knowledge

concerning the possibility of nonbeing is a result of Voldemort’s acts of violence.

Koestenbaum’s existential perception is that death is not experienced; rather,

everyone confronts “the anticipation of an inevitable personal death” (3). Since Harry

is the only person to have ever escaped the certainty of death that follows the killing

curse Avada Kedavra, he has consequently confronted his future state of nonbeing.

Harry has thus been given the tools to accept that his being will cease to exist at a

very young age: he knows that he will die. Despite Voldemort’s attempt to kill him,

Harry never appears to have any qualms about facing him: the eventual destruction of

his own being is miniscule in relation to the damage Voldemort can do to the world.

Rather, the realization of his inevitable death appears to be gradual. As it is revealed

to him “that one of [them] has got to kill the other one… in the end” (Rowling, Order

744), the process of acceptance has been set in motion. If he does not kill Voldemort,

he will die himself. Harry either has to accept his death, or fear it like Voldemort

does. It is only by accepting death that he will overcome the anxiety concerning it.

Neither Voldemort nor Harry “can live while the other survives” (Rowling,

Hallows 591), which mirrors the existential claim that “nonbeing is an inseparable

part of being”, and that in order “[t]o grasp what it means to exist, one needs to grasp

the fact that he might not exist” (May, Discovery 105). Hence, in order for Harry and

Voldemort to truly exist as beings, they must also accept their impending nonbeing.

As their fates are intertwined, their states of being, or nonbeing, depend on the other.

It is only when they do confront nonbeing, and the anxiety it causes, that they can

truly live. It is only by fearing each other, and nonbeing, that their beings will cease to

exist. Tillich’s theoretical claim is that “[i]f there were no fear of death, the threat […]

of a superior enemy would be without effect” (43). I would therefore suggest that

Voldemort’s apparent anxiety concerning nonbeing keeps him from his being, while

Dahlbäck 21

Harry appears to have been preparing for death his entire existence. In contrast to

Voldemort who, rather than accepting death has spent his life in a state of anxiety,

trying desperately to overpower death. Voldemort’s idea of overcoming anxiety

consequently appears to be to vanquish the source of it, rather than accepting it as a

part of his existence. The fear of death has therefore caused Voldemort to fear Harry,

since he is the only one who can end his existence. Harry’s acceptance of nonbeing

does, however, reach its culmination when he, in The Deathly Hallows, is informed

that in order for Voldemort to die, he must die along with him. There is a piece of

Voldemort in Harry, keeping them tethered together: “[a]nd while that fragment of

soul, unmissed by Voldemort, remains attached to, and protected by Harry, Lord

Voldemort cannot die” (Rowling, Hallows 551). They are bound together, and only

death will free them from each other. They therefore serve as aids in the other’s

struggle with both death and the anxiety it causes. While Voldemort believes that he

needs to overpower Harry in order to vanquish death completely, the constant threat

of being killed by Voldemort causes him to accept his eventual death as a part of his

existence.

The Acceptance of Death When Harry realizes that he must die in order to vanquish Voldemort he confronts his

nonbeing more intensely than ever before. As Taliaferro argues, in order for Harry

“[t]o become whole once again, [he] must die to release the Voldemort link” (236). It

is only when the bond between him and Voldemort has been severed that Harry can

achieve the state of an ideal being. Harry must thus face his own nonbeing, and die

willingly. Ultimately, Harry sacrifices himself and Killinger consequently refers to

Harry as a “sacrificial lamb” (20), indicating that there are similarities between

Rowling’s protagonist and Jesus Christ. As Harry walks to his own execution he is

“alone the way Christ was alone when he went to the cross” (20). I would further

argue that this is an indication of a deliberate exploitation of the mythical resonance

of the Jesus figure: similarly to Jesus, Harry walks to his death willingly, emphasizing

both his sacrifice for the world, as well as the differences between himself and

Voldemort. Harry faces nonbeing to the point of mirroring his mother’s sacrifice: he

dies to save the world. Thus, while Voldemort’s existence appears to be ruled by his

anxiety concerning nonbeing, Harry accepts the end of his being. Based on

Koestenbaum’s claim, that “[t]o accept death means to take charge of one’s life”

Dahlbäck 22

(27), I would insist that Harry’s willingness to die suggests that he is in far more

control of his own existence than Voldemort will ever be.

By accepting his inevitable death, Harry has arguably confronted nonbeing,

and the anxiety that comes with it, and is able to live life more fully than before. I

would therefore argue that since Harry has seen the death that his future holds, he is

able to fulfil his potential and enter a state of an ideal being. Feifel’s existential view

is that in order “to completely understand himself, man must confront death, become

aware of personal death” (65): while Voldemort avoids his own death, Harry accepts

and faces his eventual death at a very young age. His awareness of nonbeing is

symbolised by Thestrals: a magical creature which is only visible to those “who have

seen death’” (Rowling, Order 394). Since it is only after Harry has seen Cedric die

that he is able to see these creatures, I would claim that the death of Cedric Diggory is

a catalyst for Harry’s awareness of nonbeing. In Tillich’s view “[b]eing has nonbeing

‘within’ itself as that which is eternally present” (34). This would indicate that the

nonbeing in Harry’s being is emphasized by his continued confrontation with the

nonbeing of others. I would further argue that the more significant a person appears to

be to Harry, the more their death affects his perception of nonbeing. Therefore, in

order for Harry to accept his own nonbeing, he has to lose several people close to him.

The deaths of his godfather Sirius, his mentor Dumbledore, his trusted owl Hedwig,

the faithful house-elf Dobby, and his friends Lupin and Tonks are therefore vital

components in Harry’s awareness of what nonbeing signifies. He has to experience

these losses while being aware that “[n]o spell can reawaken the dead” (Rowling,

Goblet 605). However, when one accepts death, and thus the anxiety it causes, one’s

existence is enhanced, rather than destroyed: one is one step closer to accepting one’s

existence completely. I would consequently claim that it is Harry’s willingness to die

that keeps him from reaching a state of nonbeing, and in turn also what keeps him

existing. In Koestenbaum’s view, accepting death “will neutralize an otherwise

completely demoralizing and paralyzing fear. This is one key to the successful

management of human existence” (26). I would therefore argue that Harry, in his

acceptance of death is able to overcome any possible fears concerning death, and by

choosing to die he is in control of his existence. He has faced his own death on a

number of occasions and his acceptance of it is evident: “it did not occur to him not to

try and escape, to outrun Voldemort. It was over, he knew it, and all that was left was

the thing itself: dying” (Rowling, Hallows 554). The fulfilment of his being, as a

Dahlbäck 23

result of his acceptance of nonbeing is further symbolised by his resurrection: as

Harry sacrifices himself, he dies, but still appears to have the ability to return to life. I

would consequently claim that it is due to his acceptance of his future nonbeing that

his being can truly and fully exist: he accepts his existence completely and does not

question any aspect of it. Death is an unavoidable part of his existence, and by

accepting that Harry is able to fulfil his true potential. It is Harry’s willingness to die,

to fully accept death and nonbeing, that makes him “the true master of death, because

the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die,

and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying”

(Rowling, Hallows 577).

The Deathly Hallows The most evident symbols of Harry’s acceptance of nonbeing are the Deathly

Hallows: the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone, and the Cloak of Invisibility, which

“if united, will make the possessor master of Death” (Rowling, Hallows 333). The

quest to unite the Hallows and become “Conqueror [or] Vanquisher” (33) of death is

here a less brutal way of striving for immortality than Voldemort’s creation of

Horcruxes. The ambition to unite the Deathly Hallows is, however, no different from

the making of Horcruxes: any attempt to avoid nonbeing diminishes the individual’s

being, as well as its Dasein. In Hunsinger’s view “an existing individual, [...] must

face the existential reality of [his/her] own death” (34-5). Hence, to spend one’s life

running from death, striving for immortality, is to ignore the reality of one’s

existence. However, conquering death by accepting nonbeing does not mean that one

is naturally ready to die. In Rowling’s series the uniting of the Hallows rather appears

to symbolise a process of realization: one must face the different aspects of death and

nonbeing in order to truly understand the meaning of them. Insight is the only way to

become worthy of the Hallows: it is only when one realizes the true significance of all

three objects, and the impact these have on one’s existence, that one can be the master

of one’s being. United, the Deathly Hallows would thus symbolise the acceptance of

nonbeing. Apart, however, each of the Hallows appears to represent a different

approach to nonbeing and death.

Each of the Hallows was originally customized for each of three brothers,

according to their different priorities. The Elder Wand is “a wand more powerful than

any in existence: a wand that must always win duels for its owner, a wand worthy of a

Dahlbäck 24

wizard who had conquered Death” (Rowling, Hallows 331, emphasis in the original).

Due to the power it possesses, this Hallow ends up attracting those who seek power;

wizards like Voldemort who are prepared to kill in order to attain the ability to

overpower death. I would, however, argue that the wand is not a symbol of the

conquering of death: rather, the wand represents the desperation, caused by the

anxiety of nonbeing, which drives man’s desire for immortality. The wand was

originally requested as proof of having conquered death, but the brother did not

conquer death: he was given a proof of his thirst for power, and his ignorance

concerning nonbeing is what gets him killed. The power of the wand is not that it

conquers death, but that it attracts death to the owner, proving that death cannot be

fooled: as an existential being, you must confront the eventual nonbeing. Hunsinger

further states that “to say that death is ‘possible at any moment’ means that the

coming of death is certain, but the hour of its coming in uncertain” (33). I would

therefore claim that since possession of the wand appears to increase the probability

of death, it would therefore also increase the anxiety of nonbeing.

The Resurrection Stone has the “power to recall others from Death”

(Rowling, Hallows 331, emphasis in the original). Rather than being an attempt at

overcoming one’s own nonbeing, the stone is an additional indication of the ignorance

of death and nonbeing as it serves to override Death by recalling those who have

already died. In Koestenbaum’s view “the death of others” (5, emphasis in the

original) might cause us a sense of anxiety similar to that caused by the knowledge of

our own impending nonbeing. Thus, the stone, rather than representing the attempt to

overcome one’s own death, symbolises the anxiety brought on by the death of others.

This is indicated as those whom the stone brings back are “sad and cold, separated

from [one] as by a veil. Though [they have] returned to the mortal world, [they do]

not truly belong there and suffer” (Rowling, Hallows 332, emphasis in the original). I

would here claim that this is the anxiety brought on by their deaths: they are echoes of

what they used to be, and they continue to serve as reminders of their own nonbeing.

This indicates that there is no fooling Death: Death cannot be escaped. We see this

also in how “the second brother, driven mad with hopeless longing, kill[s] himself so

as to truly join” (332, emphasis in the original) the woman he had attempted to bring

back from the dead. The echo of her being causes the brother to join death willingly,

since a life of anxiety and loss is perceived to be far worse than the state of nonbeing

that awaits him.

Dahlbäck 25

Finally, the third Hallow was designed for “the humblest and also the wisest

of the brothers” who, due to his mistrust of Death, “asked for something that would

enable him to go forth from that place without being followed by Death. And Death,

most unwillingly, handed over his own Cloak of Invisibility” (Rowling, Hallows 331,

emphasis in the original). Since the cloak is claimed to hide its owner from Death I

would claim that it also provides the owner with the time s/he needs in order to

confront the anxiety of nonbeing. According to May it is an “existential fact” that

everyone “must alone face the fact that at some unknown moment in the future [they]

shall die” (Discovery 51). The cloak thus provides its owner not with the ability to

escape from death, but a chance to come to terms with the existential fact that they

will enter a state of nonbeing. Correspondingly, it is stated that ”[i]t was only when he

had attained a great age that the youngest brother finally took off the Cloak of

Invisibility and gave it to his son. And then he greeted Death as an old friend, and

went with him gladly, and, equals, they departed this life” (Rowling, Hallows 332,

original emphasis). I would accordingly argue that the cloak is a symbol of the

process of acceptance: unlike the Elder Wand and the Resurrection Stone it cannot be

obtained by killing or stealing. Rather, the cloak should here be viewed as a tool for

acceptance, passed on from father to son, from mother to daughter. To be given the

cloak is equivalent to be given the amount of time one needs in order to come to terms

with one’s eventual death; the time to accept one’s inevitable nonbeing.

It is further stated that one has to be worthy to unite the Deathly Hallows: if

they are united with the intention “to run away from Death” (Rowling, Hallows 577)

the Hallows will not serve their purpose. The only way for the Hallows to fulfil their

purpose for their owner is if “[h]e accepts that he must die, and understands that there

are far, far worse things in the living world than dying” (577). This makes Harry the

true master of death: he has been preparing for his own nonbeing since his parents

died, and he can therefore unite the Hallows in the way they ought to be united. Due

to the deaths of Harry’s parents, he has built his being around the knowledge of

nonbeing, and this awareness is emphasized, as Harry realizes the true purpose of the

Resurrection Stone: he does not use it in order to force his loved ones back into the

mortal world, but rather as a tool for acceptance. Harry’s intent is not to bring them

back. Rather, they are used as a final step in his acceptance of his impending

nonbeing: “[i]t did not matter about bringing them back, for he was about to join

Dahlbäck 26

them. He was not really fetching them: they were fetching him” (Rowling, Hallows

559-60). The stone is in other words used to confirm Harry’s process of acceptance.

Harry is ultimately in charge of his own death, and all three Hallows play

essential parts in him facing his nonbeing: when he walks to his death, all three

Hallows rightfully belong to him. Harry is thus not the Master of Death because of the

Deathly Hallows. Rather, they prove that he does not fear nonbeing. It is because he

does not fear death that he can use the Hallows in a way only the Master of Death can:

he dies willingly and uses the Hallows to achieve it. I would therefore argue that it is

this action that distinguishes him from those who have sought the Deathly Hallows:

Harry does not pursue the Hallows, nor does he kill to gain access to them. He does

not seek to overcome death; instead, he uses to Hallows to confront his nonbeing,

thereby accepting his eventual death.

Love and Care

According to existential psychology, children are born as “one with the universe

(Umwelt), their mother (Mitwelt), and themselves (Eigenwelt)” (Feist & Feist 354,

original emphasis). This view is shaped by a heteronormative Western perception of

love, as it presumes that a mother figure is a necessary component for a successful

development of interpersonal relationships. Although this would serve as grounds for

criticism, I argue that this should be interpreted as a parental care and not necessarily

a motherly one. It is the presence of a parent that is of importance, not the gender.

May further states that in order to achieve the human’s purpose “to unite love and

will” (Love 283), these three modes have to remain stable: one must be equally

present in Umwelt, Mitwelt, and Eigenwelt. The need to be present in the three modes

of the world is clearly visible in the individual’s relationship with him- or herself, but

the relationship with others is, however, the mode most emphasized in relation to

love. There are, according to May, “four kinds of love in Western tradition” (Love

37): sex, eros, philia, and agape. Sex refers to a biological function that can be

described as lust, whereas eros is a traditional romantic love. Philia is the love in

friendships, while agape refers to an altruistic love: a devotion to the welfare of

others. These four aspects of love are all based in relationships with others, whether it

is a relationship with other human beings or a relationship with a God. Although the

Christian perception of a God is present within existential theories of love, this is not

Dahlbäck 27

the definition that will be applied: the love in focus will be that between different

beings, not between humans and their deity of choice.

Furthermore, if love is experienced, these four kinds of love are all present and

intertwined. Similarly to how “the term ‘world’ means at one and the same time the

Umwelt, the Mitwelt, and the Eigenwelt” (Binswanger, Case 269, original emphasis),

May states that “[e]very human experience of authentic love is a blending, in varying

proportions, of these four” (Love 38) types of love. Thus, in order to be a complete

and centred being, one must be balanced, not only in the three modes of the world, but

in the four kinds of love. May further argues that “[t]he human experience of love

[…] cannot be adequately described within the confines of Umwelt. The interpersonal

schools, at home chiefly in Mitwelt, have dealt with love” (Discovery 131, original

emphasis). I would, however, claim that the Mitwelt is the more significant mode to

consider in relation to love. May further emphasizes the importance of being present

in all three modes of the world in order to love completely: “without an adequate

concept of Umwelt, love becomes empty of vitality, and without Eigenwelt, it lacks

power and the capacity to fructify itself” (131, original emphasis). Hence, neither the

modes of the world or the different types of love can be separated completely from

each other. In order to experience authentic love one has to be balanced and present in

one’s existence. I would also argue that these four aspects of love appear in different

forms throughout Harry Potter, and play important roles in the unfolding of the

narrative.

The Foundations for Love It is indicated early on that love is an evident theme in the Harry Potter series.

Westman states that love is established as a “protective force” (194) in The

Philosopher’s Stone, as Harry’s mother sacrifices her life in order for her son to live.

The need and importance of parental love is further emphasized when Dumbledore

states ”that love as powerful as [Harry’s] mother’s […] leaves its own mark. Not a

scar, no visible sign… to have been loved so deeply […] will give us some protection

for ever” (Rowling, Philosopher’s 216). I would claim that this indicates that his

mother Lily’s love for him is what determines Harry’s Mitwelt: his ability to love

others the way he himself has been loved. This parental love is one of the

cornerstones of Rowling’s series; ”[t]hroughout the subsequent books, this embodied

parental love supports Harry physically and emotionally” (Westman 194). I would

Dahlbäck 28

further argue that it is due to his mother’s love for him, and his early relationship with

his mother, that Harry has the foundation he needs in order to be fully present in his

Mitwelt: he has the tools he needs in order to form healthy relationships with others.

Harry and Voldemort’s experiences with parental love are, however, portrayed

as drastically different. In contrast to Harry’s mother, who gave her own life in order

for her child to live, Voldemort’s mother “refused to raise her wand even to save her

own life” (Rowling, Half-Blood 246). While Lily loved her son to the extent that she

was willing to give her life for his, Voldemort’s mother “chose death in spite of a son

who needed her” (246). I would claim that their relationships with their mothers

affected their abilities to form and maintain interpersonal relationships: due to

Voldemort’s mother dying shortly after his birth, he has never experienced the sense

of Mitwelt that a parent will provide. Furthermore, since having parents is part of

man’s being, both Voldemort and Harry are therefore “exposed to the most serious

crises” (Binswanger, Insanity 225). It is here the love and care that parents are

assumed to provide that is of importance, not who provides it. I would accordingly

claim that Harry finds replacements for his parents during the series. Molly and

Arthur Weasley are the most evident parental figures that he appears to adopt as

substitutes for his own: although they are his best friend’s parents they treat Harry as

if he was one of their own children; they provide Harry with the love and support

close to that of real parents. Voldemort had the opportunity to do the same: he could

have found replacements of his parents; a mentor or a parental figure to help guide

him through life – but refused to do so. This is the fundamental difference between

Harry and Voldemort: the basis on which their remaining differences are built. Harry

was, through his mother’s love, given the foundations needed build his Mitwelt. This

foundation is developed further as he finds new parental figures, in the form of Sirius,

Hagrid, Dumbledore, and the Weasleys, to provide him with the interpersonal

relationships that he would have had with his parents, had they not died. Since

Voldemort did not have any parental figures to provide him with this foundation, on

which to form a sense of Mitwelt, any hope of developing an ability to love and form

interpersonal relationships thus vanished as his mother died.

Mitwelt and Philia As we have seen, friendship, and thus the Mitwelt, is an important theme in the series.

One of the more profound differences between Harry and Voldemort lies precisely

Dahlbäck 29

here, in their relationships with other people and hence their presence in the Mitwelt.

In May’s view, “love and will are interpersonal experiences” (Love 276). There is a

need for Mitwelt in order to experience love. This is evident in the relationship they

share with others. Harry appears to value his friendships more highly than anything

else in his life, which in accordance with existential psychology would signify a

constant presence in Mitwelt. Voldemort, unlike Harry, was not born into a Mitwelt,

and therefore does not experience a need for interpersonal relationships. Harry’s love

for his friends sets him and Voldemort apart, and this becomes increasingly apparent

throughout the series. While Harry’s love for others, his sense of philia, is portrayed

to become even more evident, Voldemort’s lack of love is emphasized just as clearly.

According to May, “[e]very person, experiencing as he does his own

solitariness and aloneness, longs for union with another. He yearns to participate in a

relationship greater than himself. Normally, he strives to overcome his aloneness

through some form of love” (Love 145). However, while philia and friendship are

some of the most important aspects of Harry’s life, it is stated that “Lord Voldemort

has never had a friend, nor [does Dumbledore] believe that [Voldemort] has ever

wanted one” (Rowling, Half-Blood 260). Voldemort does, however, appear to value

his loneliness: even at a young age he “preferred to operate alone. The adult

Voldemort is the same” (260). This would indicate that there are no traces of a need

for friendships and love. I would further claim that Voldemort cannot love, or form

meaningful relationships, nor does he appear to have a need to. Which in turn would

suggest that he has no need for a Mitwelt. He surrounds himself not with friends like

Harry does, but with servants. While they may believe that they are his friends, “his

Death Eaters” (260) appear to be nothing more than tools: they are only useful as long

as they serve a purpose to him. Voldemort’s statement concerning Bertha Jorkins is an

additional indication of his perception of the value of others: “I killed [her] because I

had to. She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite useless” (Rowling, Goblet

16). Voldemort thus perceives his needs to be of greater importance than the lives of

others: other people are portrayed as a means to an end for Voldemort; he does not

perceive them to be ends in themselves. The death of his mother appears to have

bereaved Voldemort of the ability to love. In view of May’s statement that love is “a

reminder of our own mortality” (Love 102), this would suggest that young Voldemort,

after his mother’s death, was left with nothing more than an awareness of his own

mortality. Although this could be interpreted as though Voldemort thereby also has

Dahlbäck 30

acquired the ability to love, I would argue that Voldemort’s obsession with

immortality prevents him from loving others. Thus, while Harry loves as completely

as his mother did, “Voldemort learned from the worst his mother did, rather than from

the best” (Bassham, Love 77, emphasis in the original).

While Harry’s self-sacrificing love mirrors his mother’s, Voldemort’s failure

to love stem from his own mother’s egocentricity. According to Bassham, “what

distinguishes Harry from Voldemort is that Harry, despite his troubled past and tragic

life, never loses his ability to love” (Love 77). Lily’s sacrifice runs deep in Harry’s

veins: he has the ability to love fully and completely, and that is his greatest strength.

He does not fear love, as Voldemort does, even though he has experienced the

negative aspects of it. In The Order of the Phoenix it is evident that he has loved and

lost: the pain Harry feels after the loss of his godfather is his “greatest strength”

(Rowling, Order 726). In May’s view, “[t]o love means to open [oneself] to the

negative as well as the positive – to grief, sorrow, and disappointment as well as to

joy [and] fulfilment” (Love 100). I would thus argue that, Harry’s capability to face

the negative aspects of love, indicates that he can love without restraint: he does not

fear the pain of loss, for he has suffered it, and he is also able to experience the joy

and fulfilment of love. May further claims that “[s]ome – perhaps most – human

beings never know deep love until they experience someone’s death, the preciousness

of friendship, devotion, loyalty” (Love 102). Since Harry experiences the deaths of

several friends and loved ones throughout the series, I would insist that he has a

deeper understanding of love than other characters in the series. With each loss he

suffers, the awareness of his love for others correspondingly increases. Harry’s philia

and his presence in the Mitwelt is thus established as clearly as Voldemort’s lack of

need for both.

It can consequently be concluded that Harry and Voldemort have very

differing needs concerning love and Mitwelt. Voldemort chooses not to love: he does

not need love or friends, nor does he want them. He surrounds himself with what he

perceives to constitute a Mitwelt: he has servants who do his bidding. In this sense,

Voldemort’s has a presence in the Mitwelt, according to the standards he has defined

for himself. He does not want the Mitwelt Harry wants: Voldemort is not willing to

open himself to the negative aspects of love, and thereby chooses not to love at all.

Voldemort’s definition of togetherness with others is arguable met through his

interactions with his servants, while Harry’s need to love requires more profound

Dahlbäck 31

relationships. Harry’s Mitwelt is therefore drastically different from Voldemort. Both

characters have consequently built their own Mitwelt, by their own definitions and

needs.

Love and Hate Although love is a recurring theme in Rowling’s series, May claims that “love is

actually a relatively rare phenomenon in […] society”, with the exception of “parental

care for children and vice versa” (Man’s 239). I would here argue that this is

highlighted by Lily’s willingness to sacrifice herself in order to save her son: her love

for Harry is powerful enough to stop Voldemort from killing Harry. According to

Bassham, Lily’s “love unleashes a more ancient and powerful magic than any potion

can hope to imitate or Voldemort can hope to defeat or even understand” (Love 77).

The love that constitutes the sacrifice Lily made is further stated to be a magic that

Voldemort, due to his ignorance of love, “was foolish to overlook” (Rowling, Goblet

566). It does not occur to Voldemort that there could be magic more powerful than he

is able to produce. This is further indicated by the assertion that Voldemort is

assumed to “have considered the ways of house-elves far beneath his notice [and] it

would never have occurred to him that they might have magic that he didn’t”

(Hallows 161). Harry is thus “protected by an ancient magic” that Voldemort

“despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated” (Order 736). I would

therefore claim that his inability to imagine a magic that he himself is not capable of

performing causes Voldemort to be ignorant, not only when it comes to the

capabilities of house-elves, but also the magic caused by deep and profound love. In

May’s view, ignorance of love has “its source in a distortion about love and trust in

infancy which renders [one] forever fearing actual love ‘because it threatens [one’s]

very existence’” (May, Love 16). I would consequently argue that this is one of the

main reasons why Voldemort does not value love: he fears love the same way he fears

death: they are perceived as threats to his existence and must therefore be avoided.

This is, furthermore, the reason Voldemort chooses to distance himself from others, to

no love or be loved, as it causes him the same anxiety as his fear of death. Since he

cannot overcome this anxiety through immortality he avoids it completely, and by

doing so his need for it appears to vanish and he is left with a superficial since of what

constitutes a Mitwelt. Voldemort does not love others – he hates them.

Dahlbäck 32

According to May, “Freud […] saw that love […] always exists in polarity

with hate” (Love 85). Correspondingly, Harry and Voldemort appear to represent each

end of this spectrum: in order to overcome the hate that Voldemort represents, there is

a need for love. We see this in the impact that Lily’s act of love has on both Harry and

Voldemort. Lily’s love is strong enough for her sacrifice to have overpowered

Voldemort’s hateful act. The protection in itself thus appears to represent a forceful

battle between love and hate. While the protection is claimed to have saved Harry, it

causes Voldemort’s curse to backfire, leaving him in a bodiless state. Smith further

argues that while this love-based protection has an immense effect on Voldemort,

“[l]ove is not wielded as a weapon; it simply overwhelms evil by its very existence”

(88). The constant battle between Harry and Voldemort is here a symbol of the battle

between love and hate, as it characterises the prevailing effects love has over hate.

This is further explored in the closing novel of the series, as Harry mirrors his

mother’s selfless sacrifice and therefore proves to be the polar opposite of Voldemort.

Harry’s “willingness to yield his own life to protect the ones he loves” (Smith

91) is the final proof of the power love is depicted to hold over hate. Although Harry

mirrors his mother’s act of love and gives his life in exchange for the lives of his

friends, his act proves to be more forceful. While Harry’s intention is to die in order to

vanquish Voldemort, Smith argues that “Harry is not, in fact, killed, and his act of

sacrifice offers magical protection to his compatriots” (91). Lily’s sacrifice saved the

life of her son, and Harry provided the same love-based protection for everyone he

cares about, everyone he loves.

You won’t be able to kill any of them, ever again. Don’t you get it? I was ready to die to stop you hurting these people […] and that’s what did it. I’ve done what my mother did. They’re protected from you. Haven’t you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can’t torture them. You can’t touch them. You don’t learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you? (Rowling, Hallows 591)

The magnitude of Harry’s sacrifice proves to be greater than Lily’s. I would therefore

claim that he has not only inherited the ability to love from his mother, he has also

learned how powerful it can be. This sacrificial act is then taken to a higher level:

while Lily’s love stopped Voldemort from killing Harry, Harry’s selfless act of love

appears to obstruct Voldemort from doing any harm whatsoever to those he gave his

life for. It is no longer simply a matter of that power love has over the hateful act of

killing a child, but rather the power it has over any act containing the hate Voldemort

arguably embodies. Harry thus appears to characterize the ability for both philia and

Dahlbäck 33

agape, as he appears to have very few restraints concerning the love he feels for his

friends; he values the lives and happiness of others to a greater extent than any other

character throughout the series.

According to May, philia can only exist if there is a sense of agape: an

“esteem for the other, the concern for the other’s welfare beyond any gain that one

can get out of it; disinterested love” (Love 319). It is this kind of love that is at the

root of Harry’s sacrifice: he is willing to give his own life in order to protect the rest

of the world from Voldemort. This selfless and self-sacrificing love is evident as early

on as in The Philosopher’s Stone. Harry has always had a sense of agape, stronger

than most: as an eleven-year-old child he shows signs of an agape more forceful than

many adults, as he puts the needs of others before himself. Towards the end of his

first year at Hogwarts, Harry is placed in front of the Mirror of Erised: a mirror that

reveals the individual’s “deepest, most desperate desire” (Rowling, Philosopher’s

157). It is during this sequence that his true sense of agape is first revealed: hidden

inside the mirror is the Philosopher’s Stone, the object Voldemort needs in order to

regain his strength, as well as immortality, and only one with a heart as “pure” (478)

as Harry’s would be able to gain access to it – while Voldemort is not. Thus, even as a

child Harry is able to look beyond his own desires and acknowledge that which is

more important for the world: that Voldemort should not gain access to the

Philosopher’s Stone. I would therefore insist that this incident alone indicates that

Harry is a symbol for the altruistic love agape.

I would further argue that the Mirror of Erised is a symbol of the complete

being. Although it is said that the mirror will not provide its viewers with “knowledge

or truth”, as they are likely to be “entranced by what they have seen, or [are] driven

mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or even possible” (Rowling, Philosopher’s

157), this would only be the case if the individual facing the mirror was lacking in any

aspect of their existence. It is further stated that “[t]he happiest man would be able to

use the Mirror of Erised like a normal mirror, that is, he would look into it and see

himself exactly as he is” (156). Thus, only someone who has fulfilled their entire

potential, and reached the state of an ideal being, would see nothing but themselves if

looking into the mirror. In order to reach this state one has to be present in all three

modes of the world simultaneously, as well as having the ability to experience the

four different kinds of love. Hence, an ideal being would not only be present in, and

capable of sustaining, the Mitwelt, but also the Umwelt and the Eigenwelt. In May’s

Dahlbäck 34

view, it is not only a matter of maintaining one’s interpersonal relationships: in order

for one’s world to be stable one has to have a successful “relationship to one’s self”

(Contributions 61), as well as the surrounding world.

While Harry clearly characterises a fulfilled Mitwelt, Voldemort appears to be

caught in the Eigenwelt. Since Voldemort has never had the opportunity, or the tools

needed, in order to explore and develop his Mitwelt, he has only focused on himself.

He has never been able to relate to others, and has never felt a need to explore

interpersonal relationships. Voldemort would thus not be able to look beyond his own

needs and prioritize the existence of others. In addition to lacking a desire for Mitwelt,

he does not appear to be connected to his surrounding world. Not being connected to

one’s Umwelt would, in May’s opinion, cause a person to “lose some of their capacity

to feel empathy for […] animals” (Man’s 68). I would argue that this is evident in The

Half-Blood Prince, as a young Voldemort claims that he “can make animals do what

[he] want[s] them to do, without training them. [He] can make bad things happen to

people who annoy [him. He] can make them hurt if [he] want[s] to” (Rowling, Half-

Blood 254). Hence, Voldemort’s lacking empathy is not isolated to humans, it is clear

that he, even as a child, did not consider the feelings of animals; torturing and

controlling both humans and animals alike. In The Goblet of Fire it is, however,

revealed that Voldemort has a snake – Nagini – that appears to be his most trusted

companion. This snake serves as one of the objects in which ha has placed a part of

his soul. Whether is love for the snake is genuine, or based in a need to protect his

soul, is unclear. It does, however, demonstrate that Voldemort has a unique and rather

questionable presence in both the Mitwelt and the Umwelt. Although he feels a

connection to the snake, and thereby to the Umwelt, it does not appears to be based in

a love for his pet, but rather in the desire for immortality that defines his entire

existence.

Exploring the Umwelt The existential concept of being present in the Umwelt is also evident in the portrayal

of magical creatures. I would claim that a presence in the Umwelt constitutes a good

relationship with both nature and animals. This is, of course, based on a cultural

distinction between humans and animals, which would here be equivalent to a

distinction between wizards and magical creatures. In Rowling’s series, magical

creatures, such as house-elves, goblins, werewolves and centaurs, appear to exist in a

Dahlbäck 35

limbo between magical beings and animals; they are not portrayed as equal to

wizards, even though they arguably possess magical abilities of their own. They also

appear to possess the same consciousness as wizards, but their standing in society is

ultimately more similar to that of an animal. While Voldemort appears to consider

“the ways of house-elves far beneath his notice” this is not an uncommon perspective:

a majority of “the pure-bloods [appear to] treat them like animals” (Hallows 161). Not

only are house-elves treated like animals by certain wizards, they are enslaved: they

are “bound to serve one house and one family for ever” (Chamber 16), unless they are

freed by the family who owns them. Their low position in society thus appears to

encourage wizards to believe that they can treat them any way they like: “house-elves

are used to bad, even brutal treatment” (Hallows 163). Since they are not wizards, or

even humans, it is indicated that very few challenge the idea of the slavery of

creatures other than those similar to themselves. Even Harry’s godfather perceives

house-elves to be less significant than humans: Dumbledore states that he does “not

think Sirius ever saw [his house-elf] Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a

human’s” (164, emphasis in the original). Differently from the majority of the wizard

community, Hermione appears to be very concerned with the lack of respect towards

house-elves, going as far as to found an organization promoting the rights of house-

elves everywhere. She perceives house-elves to be equal to wizards, in an apparent

allusion to human-rights movements. Due to the nature of how the relationship

between a house-elf and its master is depicted, it appears to be similar to that of slaves

and slave-owners during the 18th century, further indicating that house-elves, as well

as other magical beings, should be treated as equals to wizards.

Although Harry befriends the house-elf Dobby during his second year at

Hogwarts, Hermione’s commitment to the welfare of magical creatures could be

considered to function as a catalyst, causing a sense of awareness concerning the

treatment of creatures other than wizards. Although house-elves are treated as slaves,

werewolves are completely excluded from society, due to being part animal. The

werewolf Remus Lupin has spent the majority of his life hiding his condition, in fear

of being banished from society and forced to live outside the wizard community. On

these grounds, Lupin has to resign from his position as the Professor of Defence

Against the Dark Arts, since the students’ parents “will not want a werewolf teaching

their children” (Prisoner 309). Thus, while he has the physical appearance, and the

abilities, of a wizard during the majority of every month, he is forever judged by “the

Dahlbäck 36

shadow of the wolf upon his human face” (Hallows 175). Lupin is forced to exist in a

limbo between man and wolf, and this animal part of him is what excludes him from

society.

Since a presence in the Umwelt entails a relationship with animals, any

creature that is part animal would consequently have a presence in this mode of the

world. Although a werewolf’s wolfish side would indicate a presence in the Umwelt, I

would, however, argue that the ultimate symbol of this worldly presence is the

“Animagi”: a limited amount of “witches and wizards” possess the ability to “become

animals” (Prisoner 257) at will. To be able to transform oneself into an animal could

be argued to indicate that one is continually present in the Umwelt. A presence in the

Umwelt suggests that the individual has a worldly presence, an animal form would

allow for this presence to be explored further than a human form would. Since this

transformation would allow the individual to exist in the world as an animal, thus

providing him/her with a perspective other than that of a human. It allows the

individual to be part of the animal world, in addition to the human one. Furthermore,

while the werewolf’s transformation appears not to occur at will, but rather by force,

an Animagi has a choice concerning when to transform into his/her animal form. I

would therefore claim that an Animagi chooses to explore their Umwelt, while still

present in the Eigenwelt and Mitwelt, while a werewolf is torn from all modes of the

world, as it is not in control of its actions or its thoughts during this time.

During his time in the wizarding world, Harry befriends a number of house-

elves, a werewolf, centaurs and a goblin, thus including several magical creatures in

his world. I would claim that this signifies that he is not only present in the Eigenwelt

and Mitwelt, but also in the Umwelt. This process appears to start towards the end of

Harry’s second year at Hogwarts, as he befriends Dobby house-elf and he sets him

free from the terrible conditions that his enslavement has entailed. This is when Harry

begins to explore his Umwelt: his worldly presence is explored as his empathy for

creatures other than humans develops. Harry’s empathy towards a magical creature is

evident following the death of his friend Dobby the house-elf: his love for Dobby

drives him to dig a grave by hand, rather than by magic. He wants the house-elf to

have a worthy burial, not unlike one for a human being. I would therefore argue that

he is more present in the Umwelt than ever before. This is further underlined as the

goblin Harry rescued in the moments leading up to the house-elf’s death, states that

“[g]oblins and elves are not used to the protection, or the respect” (Hallows 394) that

Dahlbäck 37

Harry has shown both Dobby and the goblin Griphook. Due to these acts of kindness I

would claim that Harry’s sense of philia and agape does not only extend to fellow

humans: he cares for all beings.

I would further argue that the philia Harry feels towards Remus Lupin is the

second major indicator of his presence in the Umwelt. Even though Harry is aware of

his Professor being a werewolf, Harry still claims that Lupin is “the best Defence

Against the Dark Arts teacher [he has] ever had” (Prisoner 309). It could therefore be

claimed that Harry perceives Lupin’s competences to be far more important than

whatever condition he may have. This would thus indicate that Harry values other

people’s qualities rather than their social standing, and his ability for philia, and his

presence in both Mitwelt and Umwelt, are all exceptionally strong. I would further

argue that these different components aid each other: his strong sense of love for his

teacher and mentor, as well as Dobby the house-elf, provides him with a greater

opportunity to feel present in Mitwelt and Umwelt. His presence in these modes of the

world also aids him in developing a deeper sense of love for other characters within

the novels. Furthermore, Harry includes both wizards and magical creatures in his

world: he loves unconditionally and without prejudice, and this reflects his presence

in all three modes of the world. I would therefore claim that Harry represents the

process of exploring, developing and existing in all three modes of the world

simultaneously. Since this presence is required in order to achieve a true sense of

being, Harry is consequently completely present in his existence and has the

opportunity to fulfil his true potential and to become an ideal being if he chooses to

explore and accept his existence.

Eros According to Kierkegaard, the romantic love one might feel for another “symbolizes

man’s relation to being as a whole” (Koestenbaum 307). The connection between eros

and being is further emphasized as May states that it is “the urge […] toward higher

forms of being and relationship” (Love 38). Due to the power eros has over the

preserving of the being I would argue that pure eros represents the sense of happiness

that can overpower anxiety. In Harry Potter this anxiety is brought on by the presence

of a Dementor, and can only be overpowered by a Patronus. A Patronus is “a kind of

positive force” that takes the form of an animal: it is a projection of […] hope,

happiness”, and it thus produced “[w]ith an incantation, which will work only if you

Dahlbäck 38

are concentrating, with all your might, on a single, happy memory” (Prisoner 176). In

The Prisoner of Azkaban it is indicated that the happiness needed in order to produce

a Patronus often is based in the love one feels for another being. Since Harry is still a

child, the love serving as a basis for his Patronus appears to be a paternal one, based

on the memories of his parents. As a wizard explores and develops a sense of eros, the

happiness used in order to produce a Patronus will be based in a romantic love, rather

than a paternal one. This is illustrated in The Half-Blood Prince as Tonks’ Patronus

has “changed its form” (319) to suit that of Lupin’s werewolf form, which in line with

May’s view indicates that “[s]ome – perhaps most– human beings never know deep

love until they experience someone’s death” (Love 102). Since Tonks’ Patronus is

described to have changed in close relation to her cousin Sirius’ death, I would

suggest this is what has caused her to experience a sense of eros that she has not

experienced previously. Her love for Lupin was consequently born out of the ashes of

Sirius’ death, driving her to a love deep enough to change her Patronus. Similarly to

how Tonks’ Patronus changed to take the form of a werewolf, proving her love for

Remus Lupin, Snape’s love is shown to have caused his Patronus to mirror the shape

of Lily’s.

I would further argue that Snape characterises a sense of eros, and the power it

holds over the being, since his love for Lily Potter drives him to great acts of courage,

in order to protect her son. Even though this love is claimed not to be mutual it is one

of the most significant ones throughout the series, since Snape’s eros for Lily aids

Harry in his quest to vanquish Voldemort. Snape’s love is, however, shown to be

restricted to Lily: he does not seem to care “about the deaths of her husband and

child” (544), Harry and James rather serve as reminders of his unrequited love. I

would therefore claim that it is partly due to this, that his act to protect Harry from

Voldemort proves how great his love for Lily is. This is further established as Snape’s

Patronus guides Harry to one of the few objects that can help him conquer Voldemort.

May’s view is that human existence “consists of a new form of the battle of

the giants, Eros against Thanatos” the “death instinct” (Love 86). Based on this I

would claim that Snape’s love for Lily conflicts sharply with Voldemort’s killing of

her: Snape’s love for Lily is the Eros that is in conflict with Voldemort’s Thanatos.

Due to his love for Lily, Snape begs Voldemort to spare her life, when that fails, and

she dies, the battle of love against death is transferred to her son. Snape’s reaction to

Lily’s death is further portrayed to be both emotional and physical: following her

Dahlbäck 39

death he looks “like a man who had lived a hundred years” and he is overwhelmed by

a sense of “remorse” (Rowling, Hallows 544). Whereas Snape, prior to Lily’s death,

did not appear to care about the safety of her son, Snape now has to make sure that

her death “was not in vain” (544), which is why he has to protect her son. It is this act,

the unquestionable protection that Snape provides Harry with, that proves the eros he

feels towards Lily, even after she has died. Since Lily can no longer be protected or

saved, Snape thus has to transfer his protection to Harry. Due to his love for Harry’s

mother, Snape appears to mirror her act of love for her son, as he sacrifices his own

life and safety in order for Harry to remain safe. His love for Lily has ultimately aided

Snape in his acceptance of his existence, and he is therefore able to sacrifice his life

for her son’s.

Freedom and Free Will

Since humans have free will, they also have the freedom of being in charge of their

own choices, and therefore of their existence. May’s perception is that “[f]reedom is

man’s capacity to take a hand in his own development”; it is man’s “capacity to

mold” (Man’s 160) oneself. While man has the possibility of freedom, and thus the

ability to be in charge of his own existence, “[f]reedom does not come automatically;

it is achieved. And it is not gained at a single bound; it must be achieved each day”

(168). Due to this, there is a sense of obligation towards the possible ideal being: free

will and freedom causes a perceived sense of responsibility. The freedom that could

be perceived as an advantage would then rather be experienced as a limitation: it

might cause the individual to feel a great sense of guilt and anxiety towards the being

that they might not achieve. In Koestenbaum’s view it is, however, “an irrefutable and

irrevocable fact that man has free will” (64) and to attempt to escape it would thus be

pointless. Freedom should not be avoided, it should be embraced, and man should be

grateful for the opportunity to be in charge of his existence. Since the acceptance, and

acquisition, of freedom may cause a perceived sense of anxiety and guilt; there is a

need for courage in order “to understand, to accept, and to face fully the concretion of

our freedom” (64). This acceptance is thus an important aspect in fulfilling one’s true

potential: it is needed in order to become an ideal being. There are, in Harry Potter,

several indications of the opportunity to exercise free will, as well as the escape of it.

While I would argue that Harry represents the acceptance of free will, and therefore

Dahlbäck 40

the being’s fulfilment of his/her potential, there also appears to be a portrayal of an

on-going battle between fate and free will.

The Exertion of Free Will The first fundamental act of choice in Harry Potter is the sorting procedure that each

student goes through when arriving at Hogwarts. Each student is sorted “into one of

four houses: Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin” (Pond 187). The hat is

further identifies the students’ “personalities, potentials, and temperaments” and use

this as a basis when “sorting them into the community that best fits their strengths”

(187). Pond further argues that the Sorting Hat “appears to tap into some force of fate,

acquiring the power to foresee students’ yet unformed characters” (188). The Sorting

Hat could therefore be argued to be in charge of each students’ time at the school, as

well as their existence and their future. While the hat is demonstrated to draw from a

sense of fate when making the decision of what house each student belongs to, the hat

is still responsible for the final decisions it makes. I would, however, argue the

Sorting Hat symbolises the existential fact that while “we are free to choose, we are

not free to choose to choose” (Koestenbaum 74-5): the hat was created for the sole

purpose of choosing one of four houses for each student that attends Hogwarts.

Hence, even though the Sorting Hat makes a choice based on each student’s

capabilities and potential, it does not have a choice in making that choice.

By making the Sorting Hat is responsible for deciding what house each student

belongs to, Pond argues that Rowling “offers her characters predetermined futures”

(188). This indicates that each student is particularly suited for one house, and the

Sorting Hat will consequently choose that house for him/her. It does, however, appear

as though it is easier to determine the appropriate house for some students than for

others: “[s]ometimes […] the hat shout[s] out the house at once, but at others it [takes]

a little while to decide” (Rowling, Philosopher’s 90). I would therefore argue that not

all students have a predestined house: in the case of Hermione Granger it is revealed

that the Sorting Hat considered putting her in Ravenclaw, even though it ultimately

sorted her into Gryffindor. This suggests that it is not fate that determines what house

each student belongs to: the hat takes the student’s capabilities into account and

makes an informed decision based on their potential. It appears to come down to

whatever house the Sorting Hat believes is most suitable, and it will choose that house

over the other three.

Dahlbäck 41

This is further indicated as Harry is allowed to weigh in on what house he

prefers. I would here claim that the Sorting Hat gives Harry a choice between

Slytherin and Gryffindor, as it ponders what house would be more suitable. By

providing Harry with its thoughts concerning the matter, it also gives him the

opportunity to choose between them: when Harry begs it to not place him in

Slytherin, the hat grants his wish. It thus appears as though it was Harry’s choice,

rather than the hat’s: he wanted to belong in one house more than the other, and the

Sorting Hat thus let him decide. Pond does, however, argue that while Harry’s choice

appears to be taken into consideration the “text does not reveal to readers if other

students whose sorting takes time receive the privilege of choice from the Sorting

Hat” (188). In Koestenbaum’s view, however, “[a] man who says ‘I had no choice’

(and means it) has chosen himself to be a traitor to his human nature” (75): there is

always an option of making a choice; it is only a matter of whether the person chooses

to acknowledge the possibility of that choice. I would accordingly argue that Harry,

by choosing one house over the other, recognized that he has a choice. It is not

predetermined which house he should be in: rather, by choosing to state his opinion

concerning the matter, and by advocating his free will, Harry achieves his freedom. It

is, in turn, this action, the courage of achieving freedom, that determines that he

belongs in Gryffindor, not Slytherin.

Koestenbaum further states that “[t]o act freely is to choose” (69): to choose is

to be aware of one’s freedom. Since Hermione did not mirror Harry’s action, since

she presumably did not request to be sorted into Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw, I

would claim that she allowed the Sorting Hat to make the decision of what house she

belonged in. In this sense, Hermione does not achieve freedom. Harry’s action

appears to be a rare exception: he interferes with the sorting procedure. In accordance

with Koestenbaum’s view, I would thus argue that Harry’s actions are “self-

determined – they are [his] own personal, individual creation” (70). The Sorting Hat

does not offer the students a choice; rather, they have to achieve their freedom by

realizing that there is a possible choice to be made. Harry thereby reaches a new

awareness of the range of his free will: while he cannot control what the alternatives

are, he can always make a choice within the limitations he is given. By making that

first choice, by choosing Gryffindor over Slytherin, Harry has achieved his first sense

of freedom. This is the first step in the process Harry goes through in order to accept

and exercise his freedom, by making fundamental choices concerning his life.

Dahlbäck 42

Moreover, May’s view is that a “basic step in achieving inward freedom is

‘choosing one’s self’” (Man’s 168). Harry’s choice to be a Gryffindor rather than a

Slytherin has established the kind of person he wants to be: he has chosen his self. In

The Chamber of Secrets it is further claimed that “[i]t is our choices […] that show

what we truly are, far more than our abilities” (Rowling, Chamber 245). Thus, by

requesting that the Sorting Hat should put him in Gryffindor, Harry chooses who he is

and who he wants to become. Bassham further argues that this suggests that “our

abilities show us what we can do, but our choices reveal most clearly our qualities of

character and what we care about most deeply” (Choices 170, emphasis in the

original). While Pond suggests that Dumbledore “is telling Harry that choices only

‘show’ or reveal character; they do not make or create it” (194), I would, however,

argue that it suggests that Harry’s choice reveals that he is capable of achieving his

freedom by exercising his free will. He chose to voice his preference, and the choice

concerning his self is therefore his, and not the Sorting Hat’s.

Escaping and Accepting Freedom With the freedom Harry achieves for himself comes a sense of responsibility.

Koestenbaum’s theory states that the responsibility of freedom comes with a sense of

“guilt, and with guilt comes anxiety” (64). Hence, while the achievement, and

exercising, of his freedom appears to be beneficial for Harry’s development, there is

simultaneously a need to overcome the anxiety that might be caused by a newfound

responsibility. By making choices concerning his self, and his future, Harry is

burdened with a responsibility that he has to accept, along with his free will. Since

Koestenbaum states that “it is easier to repress [anxiety] than to bear it proudly” (64),

I would here claim that the repression of the anxiety of freedom is portrayed in terms

of “the Imperius Curse” (Rowling, Goblet 188). When placed under the curse, the

victim is relieved of any responsibility for his/her actions: it removes the ability to

make one’s own choices, and the individual is therefore relieved of the possible

anxiety that his/her free will and freedom might cause. Since the wizard who casts the

spell exerts “[t]otal control” over his victim, it is difficult to determine “who [is]

being forced to act, and who [is] acting of their own free will” (188).

As Harry is placed under the Imperius Curse, in order “to demonstrate its

power and to see whether [he can] resist its effects” (Rowling, Goblet 203), he is thus

relieved of the responsibility of making his own choices. As long as he is under the

Dahlbäck 43

influence of the Imperius Curse, Harry is not responsible for his actions. This means

that as long as he does not wish to exercise his free will he will do whatever Professor

Moody tells him to. As Harry is placed under the curse, he is overcome with “the

most wonderful feeling” (204). This indicates that the responsibility of freedom is

removed from his consciousness: “Harry [feels] a floating sensation as every thought

and worry in his head was wiped gently away, leaving nothing but a vague,

untraceable happiness” (204). Hence, as long as he does not fight the curse, he can

remain in a state free of worry: any concern he has had about his existence is gone.

Although Harry feels free, due to his lack of responsibility for his life, the Imperius

Curse rather appears to have placed him in a state where he has to fight harder for his

freedom than before. I would attain that this mirrors “the avoidance of responsibility

and commitment” (McDonald 218) that Sartre referred to as bad faith. This is further

stated to be “a form of self-deception and denial of one’s existential reality” (218).

Harry is accordingly given the opportunity to ignore his possible freedom: he can

remain in the blissful and worriless state that the curse has put him in, and

consequently escape the reality of making his own choices and his free will. The

Imperius Curse can thus be used to hide the freedom from the individual on who it is

placed. It is, in turn, the total escape from freedom and free will.

While the Imperius Curse allows Harry to hide from his freedom, his need to

exercise his free will does, however, appear to be too strongly developed for the curse

to hold. It is further stated that “[t]he Imperius Curse can be fought […] but it takes

real strength of character, and not everyone’s got it” (Rowling, Goblet 189). Since

Harry appears to have developed his free will, and achieved freedom, from the

moment he came to Hogwarts, he has had enough time to accept the responsibility

that comes with it. Furthermore, Harry does not appear to let go of his free will as

easily as his classmates; as he hears “Mad-Eye Moody’s voice, echoing in some

distant chamber of his empty brain” ordering him to act according to his instructions,

“[a]nother voice [awakes] in the back of his brain” (204) questioning these demands.

As Moody’s instructions resume, the objections in Harry’s mind grow stronger. This

would imply that his free will is strong enough to object to the effects of the curse. As

he tries to disobey Moody’s order, Harry jumps, while at the same time trying “to

prevent himself from jumping” (204). Although he fights it, he does not appear to

possess a free will strong enough to break the curse completely; instead of the

previous relief, Harry experiences a “considerable pain” (204). Harry thus appears to

Dahlbäck 44

experience far more pain from not being in charge of his own actions, and the attempt

to regain his freedom, than the responsibility to be in charge of his own choices.

Koestenbaum’s view is here applicable: even though “freedom may be painful and

may lead to guilt and anxiety, it is not as painful as the escape from freedom” (64).

Thus, while Harry might experience a great amount of anxiety, due to the

responsibilities that come with the acceptance of one’s freedom, the Imperius Curse

appears to cause him a greater amount of pain. Which in turn would indicate that he

experiences the escape of freedom, that the Imperius Curse provides, to be far worse

than the responsibility of exercising his freedom.

By fighting the Imperius Curse, Harry’s actions represent those of an

individual who resists the escape from freedom. While he does experience the

pleasures of not being responsible for his own actions, his free will takes the upper

hand and he fights for his freedom. I would here argue that when Harry accepts his

freedom he “gets over his anxiety; he is relieved from his symptoms because he

surrenders the possibilities which caused his anxiety” (May, Discovery 165). This

suggests that Harry, rather than being limited by the responsibilities brought on by his

free will, comes to realize that by achieving his freedom, he has gained more

opportunities to make his own choices. Rather than surrendering to the will of others,

he might instead be in charge of his own future. I would consequently claim that

Harry’s fight against the Imperius Curse is a symbol of the acceptance of the anxiety

that follows the freedom he first achieved during his sorting. Thus, by accepting his

freedom, Harry is one step closer to the most fundamental decision of his life: in order

to fulfil his role in the narrative he has to be able to choose to sacrifice his life in order

to rid the world of Voldemort.

Fate and Free Will The prophecy foretelling a future feud between Harry and Voldemort presents the

most complex negotiation between determinism and free will. It is revealed to Harry

that a prophecy concerning him and Voldemort was “made shortly before [his] birth”

(Rowling, Order 740), resulting in the murder of Harry’s parents and the attempted

murder of Harry. According to Pond, the prophecy “reveals the competition between

the forces of fate and free will in J. K. Rowling’s fictitious world” (181). There is

thus, in Pond’s view, an ongoing battle between fate and free will, as shown by the

prophecy. The existence of the prophecy would thus indicate that both Harry’s and

Dahlbäck 45

Voldemort’s existences are determined by fate. Once Trelawney uttered the prophecy

their fates would thus seem to have been decided for them. This would entail that both

Harry and Voldemort have to accept their fate: they are not in charge of their own

existence, nor their selves. I would here apply May’s claim that “Nietzsche spoke

often of ‘loving fate.’ He meant that man can face fate directly, can know it, dare it,

fondle it, challenge it, quarrel with it – and love it” (Love 270). By loving and

accepting his fate, Harry would give up all possibility of freedom and free will: by

accepting that his existence has already been determined this would entail that Harry

has no responsibility for his actions or his choices. I would, however, argue that the

most determining aspect of the prophecy is not that it has been made, but that

Voldemort chose to believe in it. Due to believing that the prophecy was to come true,

he chose to act according to this belief. It is only due to this choice that the prophecy

ends up coming true. Thus signifying the importance of free will, rather than fate.

Voldemort believed that the prophecy foretold his defeat, and that the only

way for him to escape was to kill Harry: the child to whom the prophecy was

referring. But this appears to be an incorrect interpretation. The true meaning of the

prophecy was that “the person who has the only chance of conquering Lord

Voldemort for good was born at the end of July, nearly sixteen years [previously].

This boy would be born to parents who had already defied Voldemort three times”

(Rowling, Order 741). This does not necessarily mean Harry: based on the provided

content of the prophecy it “could have applied to two wizard boys”, and while one of

them was indeed Harry, the other one was Neville Longbottom. It had thus not been

decided to whom the prophecy was referring: it was not a matter of fate, but rather a

matter of choice. Since “Voldemort himself would mark him as his equal” (742,

emphasis in the original) it is suggested that Voldemort was the only one who could

make the prophecy come true: he was the only one who could choose which of the

two children the prophecy would end up referring to. By choosing Harry over Neville,

Voldemort sets the prophecy in motion: he makes it come true, and he also

determined his only possible vanquisher. This is further indicated by the claim that

“[i]f Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy” it would not “have been fulfilled”

(Half-Blood 476). I would here apply Koestenbaum’s claim that

To recognize that whatever man does is his own free choice has the salutary consequence of preventing him from blaming unfeeling and nonhuman fact. Blame makes sense only where free will exists: the

Dahlbäck 46

facts are not free – but man is. To blame the facts is to choose to ignore the subjective choice-aspect of the situation (Koestenbaum 82-3)

This would thus indicate that by hearing the contents of the prophecy, and by acting

according to the belief that it will come true, Voldemort in fact ensures that the

information that the prophecy foretells is true: his free will has caused the predictions

of the prophecy to come true. It is further claimed that by murdering Harry’s father

Voldemort provided him with a desire for revenge, and when Lily was murdered

Harry was provided with the “protection that her love for him ensured” (Rowling,

Half-Blood 476-7). Thus, Voldemort “not only handpicked the man most likely to

finish him, he handed him [the] uniquely deadly weapons” (477) he would need in

order to fulfil the task. This would consequently indicate that “Voldemort himself

created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do!” (477). It is thus due to

Voldemort’s free will, not fate, that Harry is “the Chosen One” (76) – he is chosen by

Voldemort. Although this could be interpreted as a genre-specific tool to help the

narrative move forward, I would argue that the establishing of Harry as the Chosen

One rather indicates the on-going battle between fate and free will. While

Voldemort’s choices function as a catalyst, a belief in fate is an underlying factor in

the unfolding of the narrative. Pond further argues that even though

such evidence as Harry’s decisions, Dumbledore’s insistence on moral action, and Voldemort’s choice of Harry over Neville Longbottom often convinces readers of a world enjoying free will, […] such magical tools as the Sorting Hat […] and prophecies provide equal evidence for fate’s power as it does for free will. (Pond 182)

Despite the claim that prophecies and the Sorting Hat indicate that fate is the most

determining factor in Harry Potter, it is, however, stated that not “every prophecy in

the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled” (Rowling, Half-Blood 476). Prophecies could

thus be argued to be indications of what could happen, not of what will happen: if

Voldemort had not exercised his free will the prophecy would never have come true.

Both Harry and Voldemort’s choices would thus indicate that it is a matter of free

will; Harry chose to be sorted into Gryffindor; Voldemort chose to act according to

the prophecy, causing it to come true. Harry also has to exercise his free will in order

for Voldemort to be vanquished: if Harry did not feel the need to conquer him, the

prediction of the prophecy would have been futile. This would thus indicate that every

situation allows for the exercising of free will. Pond refers to Nietzsche’s theories

concerning fate and free will by claiming that

Dahlbäck 47

individuals can remain inscribed by fate while exercising free will within its boundaries. To create this space, then, fate predicts based on an individual’s personality, and that individual may react to fate by fulfilling it. In this way, Harry fulfills his destiny because he would have done so even without a prophecy foretelling his future. (Pond 182)

This suggests that while the prophecy has been made, and allows for free will to exist

within the boundaries of that prediction, Harry’s freedom allows him to choose

whether he wants to act in accordance with the prediction. In turn, this would indicate

that while Harry tries to honor his free will, Voldemort’s choices serves as a

determining factor. Since Voldemort still chooses to act according to the prediction:

he “continues to set store by the prophecy” (Rowling, Half-Blood 479), it appears as

though Voldemort’s free ultimately drives Harry to fulfil his end of the prediction.

Voldemort therefore embodies fate, while Harry still tries to achieve his freedom and

exercise his free will. Harry is, however, aware that “one of [them] is going to end up

killing the other” (479), and he further acts according to this knowledge; if he is not

prepared to die, he will have to kill Voldemort.

We are told that Harry has to die in order to vanquish Voldemort; it is only

when all the Horcruxes, and the piece of Voldemort’s soul in Harry, are destroyed that

Voldemort can truly die. Pond claims that there is “no room for doubt; Harry has no

choice” (Pond 187). I would, however, suggest that this is not the case, as there is

always room for free will: Harry can always choose not to die, to refrain from

sacrificing his own life in order to save the lives of others. In order to make this

decision it is important that Harry has been allowed to test the boundaries of his free

will, and his freedom. From the moment he achieved freedom during his Sorting he

has made choices concerning his self and his existence. The choice of whether he

wants to act in accordance to the predictions of the prophecy is his most fundamental

act of free will. Koestenbaum further claims that “[o]nce it is clear that man cannot

avoid responsibility, regardless of how he chooses, he is better prepared to freely

accept this responsibility” (83). I would accordingly insist that Harry chooses to

sacrifice his life for a greater cause than his own existence: due to the prophecy, we

see how Harry conforms to the existential process of “accept[ing] responsibility for

fulfilling one’s own destiny [by] accepting the fact that [he] must make his own basic

choices himself” (May, Man’s 169). The choice to die determines Harry’s entire

existence: while he chooses to die he does not do so because he wants to die, but

rather because he is prepared to die in order to save the world. Harry’s thus

Dahlbäck 48

symbolises the “willingness to accept full responsibility – that is, responsibility for all

the implications of [his] actions – complements the previous characterization of free

will” (Koestenbaum 83, emphasis in the original).

Conclusion

Using existential psychology, I have here attempted to achieve a comprehensive

character analysis of Harry and Voldemort. It is clear that Harry Potter engages with

fundamental existential themes. As I have tried to demonstrate, existential psychology

provides us with a powerful vocabulary to explore different facets of this thematic. I

have further tried to prove that an existential approach provides a more

comprehensive character analysis than has been achieved by previous scholarship. By

focusing on the characters’ entire being existential themes, such as death, love, and

free will, are united as determining aspects for a character’s existence.

Although Harry and Voldemort are argued to represent two juxtaposed ends of

the existential spectrum, due to their widely different approaches to fundamental

aspects of existence, their existential journeys appear to serve their beings in rather

similar ways. Both are faced with an existential anxiety, due to early confrontations

with death, but are affected by it in two drastically different, but equally important,

ways. Voldemort succumbs to the fear of his impending nonbeing, while Harry uses

his early trauma to confront and accept his fear, thereby annihilating the threat against

his very existence. These differing coping-strategies are what both distinguishes

Harry and Voldemort from each other, but also what determines the basis on which

their beings are built. Since one’s ideal being is determined by what potential one has,

Harry and Voldemort’s beings cannot be judged on the same principles. Although

Harry’s approach to his existence constitutes a fulfilling of his potential, Voldemort’s

potential is his own, and cannot be compared to Harry’s. According to the premises he

has, Voldemort could, rather, be argued to fulfil his true potential – or, at the very

least, the potential he perceives himself to have. However, Voldemort’s perception of

an ideal being does not coincide with the ideal shared by those in this fictional world.

When a moral framework is added a true difference between Harry and Voldemort

can be detected: since morality is an apparent component in Harry Potter it not only

influences the narrative’s portrayal of the two characters, but also determines the

grounds on which this analysis was made. This morality is also present in existential

Dahlbäck 49

psychology, due to the Christian undertone in this theory. It is this Christian and

moral framework that divides Harry Potter into good and evil – and it is consequently

on these premises that Harry is perceived as an ideal being, whereas Voldemort is not.

I would therefore maintain that Harry should be interpreted as the ideal being

who has managed to exist completely in all three modes of the world simultaneously.

He represents a being who has completely accepted his freedom, possesses a love for

others, and achieves acceptance of nonbeing, and therefore also anxiety. Indicating

that the four major aspects of existential psychology are dependent on each other:

they are intertwined, and provide Harry with the tools he needs in order to fulfil his

potential and become an ideal being. Although Voldemort’s presence in the three

modes is different than Harry’s it does however appear to be apparent – in accordance

with Voldemort’s needs and definitions concerning what these modes signifies. Since

they do not share the same perception of what constitutes a balanced relationship with

oneself, with others and with nature, their presences in the Eigenwelt, Mitwelt and the

Umwelt are somewhat different. Voldemort’s attempt to overcome death causes him

to lose his presence in the world, if only temporarily. Even though a simultaneous

presence in the three modes is important it is not the sole component in becoming an

ideal being. Although present in the world, Voldemort fears his existence, and this is

one of the reasons why he fails to become an ideal being.

Harry manages to do what Voldemort does not: he accepts existence, and

therefore also overcomes, anxiety. Voldemort, on the other hand, tries to overcome

the fundamental fact that everyone will, at some moment in time, cease to exist. With

death as the catalyst for both Harry and Voldemort’s struggle with anxiety, it is also

what connects them to each other: the reason why they are constantly juxtaposed

against each other in their existential struggles. Voldemort’s existence is plagued by

anxiety: he fears death, love, and freedom, and attempts to escape them all. It is this

attempt and desire to overcome nonbeing and escape anxiety that could be interpreted

as the potential Voldemort attempts, and to some extent succeeds, to fulfil. If it were

not for the evident morality in both Harry Potter and existential psychology,

Voldemort would have been able to fulfil his true potential. Now, rather than

becoming an ideal being, he becomes himself. Harry, on the other hand, accepts his

existence and this acceptance is what overpowers his anxiety. This is further evident

in his acceptance of both love and freedom: they aid him in his destruction of

Voldemort, and therefore also in taking control of his existence.

Dahlbäck 50

Works Cited

Barber, Peter John. “The Combat Myth and the Gospel’s Apocalypse in the Harry

Potter Series: Subversion of a Supposed Existential Given”. Journal of

Religion and Popular Culture, 24:2 (Summer 2012). 183-200. Stockholm

University Library. 21 July. 2013.

<http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp.sub.su.se/journals/journal_of_religion_and_popular_

culture/v024/24.2.barber.pdf >

Bassham, Gregory. “Love Potion No. 9 ¾”. The Ultimate Harry Potter and

Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken N.J.:

Wiley, 2010. 66-79. Print.

---. “Choices vs. Abilities: Dumbledore on Self-Understanding”. The Ultimate Harry

Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham.

Hoboken N.J.: Wiley, 2010. 157-171. Print.

Beers, Melissa J. & Apple, Kevin J. “Intergroup Conflict in the World of Harry

Potter”. The Psychology of Harry Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas:

Benbella Books, 2006. 33-44. Print.

Binswanger, Ludwig. “The Case of Ellen West”. Existence: A New Dimension in

Psychiatry and Psychology. Ed. Rollo May. New York: Simon and Schuster,

1958. 237-364. Print.

---. “Insanity as Life-Histrorical Phenomenon”. Existence: A New Dimension in

Psychiatry and Psychology. Ed. Rollo May. New York: Simon and Schuster,

1958. 214-236. Print.

Cicirelli, Victor G. “End-of-life Decisions: Research Findings and Implications”.

Existential and Spiritual Issues in Death Attitudes. Ed. Adrian Tomer, Graton

T. Eliason & Paul. T.P. Wong. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

2008. 115-138. Print.

Dobson, Wendy & Wong, Paul T.P. “Women Living With HIV: The Role of Meaning

and Spirituality”. Existential and Spiritual Issues in Death Attitudes. Ed.

Adrian Tomer, Graton T. Eliason & Paul. T.P. Wong. New York: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 2008. 173-208. Print.

Feifel, Herman. “Death – Relevant Variable in Psychology”. Existential Psychology.

Ed. Rollo May. New York: Random House, 1961. 61-74. Print.

Dahlbäck 51

Feist, Jess & Feist, Gregory J. Theories of Personality. 7th ed., New York: McGraw-

Hill, 2008. Print.

Gebsattel, V.E. von. “The World of the Compulsive”. Existence: A New Dimension in

Psychiatry and Psychology. Ed. Rollo May. New York: Simon and Schuster,

1958. 170-187. Print.

Goodfriend, Wind. “Attachment Styles at Hogwarts”. The Psychology of Harry

Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas: Benbella Books, 2006. 75-90. Print.

Hart, Joshua & Goldenberg, Jamie L. “A Terror Management of Perspective on

Spirituality and the Problem of the Body”. Existential and Spiritual Issues in

Death Attitudes. Ed. Adrian Tomer, Graton T. Eliason & Paul. T.P. Wong.

New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. 91-114. Print.

Hoffman, Louis, et al. “Exploring Diversity Issues in Existential-Integrative Therapy:

Embracing Difficult Dialogues”. Humanist Psychotherapist Conference,

Boston. August, 2008. Presentation. PDF file.

Hook, Misty. “What Harry and Fawkes Have in Common”. The Psychology of Harry

Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas: Benbella Books, 2006. 91-104. Print.

Hunsinger, George. Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and the Concept of Death. California:

Stanford University, 1968. Print.

Killinger, John. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Harry Potter. Macon: Mercer

University Press. 2009. Print.

Koestenbaum, Peter. The Vitality of Death: Essays in Existential Psychology and

Philosophy. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Company, 1971. Print.

May, Rollo. “Contributions of Existential Psychotherapy”. Existence: A New

Dimension in Psychiatry and Psychology. Ed. Rollo May. New York: Simon

and Schuster, 1958. 37-91. Print.

---. Love & Will. New York: Norton, 2007 [1969]. Print.

---. The Discovery of Being: Writings in Existential Psychology. New York: Norton,

1994 [1983]. Print.

---. The Meaning of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1996 [1950]. Print.

---. Man’s Search for Himself. New York: Norton, 1953. Print.

McDonald, Matthew. Epiphanies: An Existential Philosophical And Psychological

Inquiry. Diss. University of Technology, 2005. Privately published, 2005. PDF

file.

Dahlbäck 52

<http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/20091/02WholeT

hesis.pdf?sequence=2>

Pahel, Laurie J. “Harry Potter and the Magic of Transformation”. The Psychology of

Harry Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas: Benbella Books, 2006. 311-326.

Print.

Patrick, Christopher J. & Patrick, Sarah K. “Exploring the Dark Side”. The

Psychology of Harry Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas: Benbella Books,

2006. 221-232. Print.

Pond, Julia. “A Story of the Exceptional: Fate and Free Will in the Harry Potter

Series”. Children's Literature, 38 (2010). 181-206. Stockholm University

Library. 13 Dec. 2012.

<http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp.sub.su.se/journals/childrens_literature/v038/38.pond.

html>

Provenzano, Danielle M. & Heyman, Richard E. “Harry Potter and the Resilience to

Adversity”. The Psychology of Harry Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas:

Benbella Books, 2006. 105-119. Print.

Rakison, David H. & Simard, Caroline. “Evolution, Development, and the Magic of

Harry Potter”. The Psychology of Harry Potter. Ed. Neil Mulholland. Dallas:

Benbella Books, 2006. 249-262. Print.

Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. 2nd ed.

London: Routledge, 2002 [1983]. Print.

Ronen, Ruth. Possible Worlds in Literary Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1994. PDF file.

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597480>

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury, 1997.

Print.

---. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury, 1999. Print.

---. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. London: Bloomsbury, 2005. Print.

---. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. London: Bloomsbury, 2007. Print.

Smith, Anne Collins. “Harry Potter, Radical Feminism, and the Power of Love”. The

Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory

Bassham. Hoboken N.J.: Wiley, 2010. 80-96. Print.

Dahlbäck 53

Taliaferro, Charles. “The Real Secret of the Phoenix: Moral Regeneration through

Death”. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles.

Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken: Wiley, 2010. 229-243. Print.

Taylor, Eugene. The Mystery of Personality: A History of Psychodynamic Theories.

New York: Springer, 2009. PDF file.

<http://link.springer.com.ezp.sub.su.se/book/10.1007/978-0-387-98104-

8/page/1>

Tillich, Paul. The Courage to Be. 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1953

[1952]. Print.

Walls, Jonathan L. & Walls, Jerry L. “Beyond Godrics Hallow: Life After Death and

the Search for Meaning”. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy:

Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken N.J.: Wiley, 2010.

246-257. Print.

Wandinger, Nikolaus. “‘Sacrifice’ in the Harry Potter Series from a Girardian

Perspective”. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture, 17

(2010). 27-51. Stockholm University Library. 21 July. 2013.

<http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp.sub.su.se/journals/contagion/v017/17.wandinger.pdf>

Westman, Karin E. “The Weapon We Have is Love”. Children's Literature

Association Quarterly, 33:2 (Summer 2008). 193-199. Stockholm University

Library. 3 April. 2013.

<http://muse.jhu.edu.ezp.sub.su.se/journals/childrens_literature_association_q

uarterly/v033/33.2.westman.html>

Williams, David Lay. & Kellner, Alan J. “Dumbledore, Plato, and the Lust for

Power”. The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles.

Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken: Wiley, 2010. 128-140. Print.

Zunshine, Lisa. Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus: The

Ohio State University Press, 2006. Kindle file.